Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare a double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix.

Methods

Patients with a Bishop score of ≤6 requiring labor induction at term received either a double-balloon catheter or a dinoprostone vaginal insert. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery rate within 24 h, and the secondary outcome was cesarean section rate.

Results

A total of 155 women were included; 76 received induction with a double-balloon catheter and 79 with the dinoprostone vaginal insert. The groups were similar with respect to maternal age, body mass index, gravidity, parity, baseline Bishop score, and indications for induction. Gestational age at induction was similar between the groups (double balloon 40.52 ± 0.86 weeks; dinoprostone 40.60 ± 0.79 weeks, P = 0.516). There was no difference in the vaginal delivery rate within 24 h (50 vs. 53.2 %, P = 0.694) or the cesarean section rate (39.5 vs. 31.6 %, P = 0.185) between the groups. More patients in the double-balloon catheter group required oxytocin administration than in the dinoprostone group (75 vs. 31.65 %, respectively, P < 0.001), but uterine hyperstimulation was less frequent in the double-balloon catheter group (0 vs. 10.1 %, respectively, P = 0.007). Neonatal outcomes were similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone vaginal insert are associated with similar vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates and neonatal outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Swamy GK (2012) Current methods of labor induction. Semin Perinatol 36:348–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hawkins JS, Wing DA (2012) Current pharmacotherapy options for labor induction. Expert Opin Pharmacother 13:2005–2014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gelber S, Sciscione A (2006) Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49:642–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O’Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE (2009) Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG 116:1443–1452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Agosti M, Serati M, Uccella S, Arlant V, Bolis P (2011) Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:338.e1–338.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jozwiak M, Oude RK, Benthem M et al (2011) Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 378:2095–2103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Adeniji OA, Oladokun A, Olayemi O, Adeniji OI, Odukogbe AA, Ogunbode O, Aimakhu CO, Omigbodun AO, Ilesanmi AO (2005) Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol. J Obstet Gynaecol 25:134–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Fogertey PJ, Roehl KA, Macones GA (2013) Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 121:247–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kehl S, Ehard A, Berlit S, Spaich S, Sütterlin M, Siemer J (2011) Combination of misoprostol and mechanical dilation for induction of labour: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 159:315–319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Agosti M, Serati M, Marchitelli G, Bolis P (2012) A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:121–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E (2011) Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:79–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Atad J, Hallak M, Ben-David Y, Auslender R, Abramovici H (1997) Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:29–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rutherford SE, Phelan JP, Smith CV, Jacobs N (1987) The four-quadrant assessment of amniotic fluid volume: an adjunct to antepartum fetal heart rate testing. Obstet Gynecol 70:353–356

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK (1984) Estimating fetal age: computer-assisted analysis of multiple fetal growth parameters. Radiology 152:497–501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Halaska MG, Vlk R, Feldmar P, Hrehorcak M, Krcmar M, Mlcochova H, Mala I, Rob L (2006) Predicting term birth weight using ultrasound and maternal characteristics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 128:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. (2008) Obstetrics and Gynecology. In: Jie LE (ed) 7th edn. People’s Medical Publishing House, Beijing

  17. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee KA, Mi Lee S, Jin Yang H, Park CW, Mazaki-Tovi S, Hyun Yoon B, Romero R (2011) The frequency of meconium-stained amniotic fluid increases as a function of the duration of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 24:880–885

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ et al (2009) Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 151:252–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Osava RH, Silva FM, Vasconcellos de Oliveira SM, Tuesta EF, Amaral MC (2012) Meconium-stained amniotic fluid and maternal and neonatal factors associated. Rev Saude Publica 46:1023–1029 (Article in Portuguese)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tathem K, Harris LJ, O’Rourke P, Kimble RM (2012) Dinoprostone vaginal pessary for induction of labour: safety of use for up to 24 h. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol 52:582–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by Science and technology plan of social development projects of Guangdong Province (No. 2010B080701011) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81470067). There was no commercial financial support of this study.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 107 West Yanjiang Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    Chuying Du, Yukun Liu, Yinglin Liu, Hong Ding, Rui Zhang & Jianping Tan

Authors
  1. Chuying Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yukun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yinglin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hong Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jianping Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yinglin Liu.

Additional information

Chuying Du and Yukun Liu contributed equally to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Du, C., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. et al. Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291, 1221–1227 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3547-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3547-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation