Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Balloon catheter vs oxytocin alone for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix: a multicenter, retrospective study

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

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and oxytocin alone for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix.

Materials and methods

A retrospective and observational study was conducted from 2013 to 2017, at the Saint-Etienne University Hospital where women received induction with a double-balloon catheter for 12 h and at the Grenoble Alpes University Hospital where women received induction with a low‐dose oxytocin infusion. Primary outcome was the rate of vaginal birth.

Results

Out of 1920 women eligible for attempting a vaginal birth after one previous cesarean section, 501 had a labor induction. Among women with an unfavorable cervix, 160 received a double-balloon catheter in Saint Etienne and 152 received oxytocin alone in Grenoble. The vaginal birth rate was higher in the double-balloon catheter group (61% versus 47% in the oxytocin group). An induction of labor with oxytocin alone reduced chances of vaginal birth (aOR 0.38 CI-95% [0.22–0.66]) compared to cervical ripening with double-balloon catheter. The perinatal morbidity was similar in the two groups. There was, however, 3.9% uterine rupture in the oxytocin group versus 0.6% in the double-balloon group (p = 0.11).

Conclusion

For induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and with unfavorable cervix, cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter increases the rate of vaginal birth without increased risk of uterine rupture.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available on reasonable request.

References

  1. Blondel B, Coulm B, Bonnet C, Goffinet F, Le Ray C, National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys (2017) Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016: results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 46:701–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sentilhes L, Vayssière C, Beucher G, Deneux-Tharaux C, Deruelle P, Diemunsch P et al (2013) Delivery for women with a previous cesarean: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 170:25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deruelle P, Lepage J, Depret S, Clouqueur E (2012) Induction of labor and intrapartum management for women with uterine scar. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 41:788–802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beucher G, Dolley P, Lévy-Thissier S, Florian A, Dreyfus M (2012) Maternal benefits and risks of trial of labor versus elective repeat caesarean delivery in women with a previous caesarean delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 41:708–726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise J-M, Horey D (2013) Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD004224

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gobillot S, Ghenassia A, Coston AL, Gillois P, Equy V, Michy T et al (2018) Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labour after caesarean section. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 47:539–543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Haumonté J-B, Raylet M, Sabiani L, Franké O, Bretelle F, Boubli L et al (2012) Predictive factors for vaginal birth after cesarean section. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 41:735–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bishop EH (1964) Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 24:266–268

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cirier J, Diguisto C, Arlicot C, Denis C, Potin J, Perrotin F (2015) Mechanical methods for cervical ripening in France: an evaluation of professional practices. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 43:361–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Blanc-Petitjean P, Salomé M, Dupont C, Crenn-Hebert C, Gaudineau A, Perrotte F et al (2018) Labour induction practices in France: a population-based declarative survey in 94 maternity units. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 47:57–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilstrop M, Sciscione A (2015) Induction of labor–pharmacology methods. Semin Perinatol 39:463–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sciscione AC (2014) Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction: mechanical. Clin Obstet Gynecol 57:369–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamourdedieu C, Gnisci A, Agostini A (2016) Risk of uterine rupture after cervical ripening with ballon catheter on uterus with previous cesarean section. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 45:496–501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, Mol BWJ, Irion O, Boulvain M (2012) Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD001233

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ducarme G, Grange J, Vital M (2016) Expansion dilatation balloons for cervical ripening in obstetric practice. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 45:112–119

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kehl S, Weiss C, Rath W (2016) Balloon catheters for induction of labor at term after previous cesarean section: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 204:44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meetei L, Suri V, Aggarwal N (2014) Induction of labor in patients with previous cesarean section with unfavorable cervix. J Med Soc 28:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ferradas ER, Alvarado IL, Gabilondo MA, Diez-Itza I, García-Adanez J (2013) Double balloon device compared to oxytocin for induction of labour after previous caesarean section. Open J Obstet Gynecol 03:212–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shah U, Bellows P, Drexler K, Hawley L, Davidson C, Sangi-Haghpeykar H et al (2017) Comparison of induction of labor methods for unfavorable cervices in trial of labor after cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 30:1010–1015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sarreau M, Isly H, Poulain P, Fontaine B, Morel O, Villemonteix P et al (2020) Balloon catheter vs oxytocin alone for induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 99:259–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. El Khouly NI (2017) A prospective randomized trial comparing Foley catheter, oxytocin, and combination Foley catheter-oxytocin for labour induction with unfavourable cervix. J Obstet Gynaecol 37:309–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College), Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (2014) Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:179–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. West HM, Jozwiak M, Dodd JM (2017) Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD009792

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK (2000) Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1176–1179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bujold E, Blackwell SC, Gauthier RJ (2004) Cervical ripening with transcervical foley catheter and the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 103:18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsén L, Vangen S (2010) Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. BJOG 117:809–820

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cahill AG, Waterman BM, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Allsworth JE, Evanoff B et al (2008) Higher maximum doses of oxytocin are associated with an unacceptably high risk for uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(32):e1-5

    Google Scholar 

  28. Grobman WA, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ et al (2007) Outcomes of induction of labor after one prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 109:262–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gommers JSM, Diederen M, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D, Mol BWJ (2017) Risk of maternal, fetal and neonatal complications associated with the use of the transcervical balloon catheter in induction of labour: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 218:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, Dy J (2013) Clinical practice obstetrics committee, special contributors induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35:840–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dupont C, Carayol M, Le Ray C, Barasinski C, Beranger R, Burguet A et al (2017) Oxytocin administration during spontaneous labour: guidelines for clinical practice. Guidelines short text. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol 45:56–61

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ et al (2009) Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(56):e1-6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Étienne, 42055, Saint-Étienne, France

    Déborah Secchi, Céline Chauleur & Tiphaine Raia-Barjat

  2. Service Obstétrique, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, CS 10217, 38043, Grenoble, France

    Julia Albéric, Sophie Gobillot & Pascale Hoffmann

  3. Département d’information médicale, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, 2, avenue Oscar Lambret, 59037, Lille, France

    Adrien Ghenassia

  4. Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Pharmacologie fondamentale, pharmacologie clinique et addictologie, CS 10217, 38043, Grenoble, France

    Matthieu Roustit

  5. INSERM U1059 Sainbiose, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne, France

    Céline Chauleur & Tiphaine Raia-Barjat

  6. Université Grenoble Alpes, CS 40700, 38058, Grenoble, France

    Pascale Hoffmann

Authors
  1. Déborah Secchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Albéric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sophie Gobillot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adrien Ghenassia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthieu Roustit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Céline Chauleur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pascale Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tiphaine Raia-Barjat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DS, JA and SG designed the study, collected the data and drafted the article. AG collected the data. MR carried out the quantitative analysis. CC and PH reviewed and edited the manuscript. TRB drafted the article reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiphaine Raia-Barjat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest in this work.

Ethical approval

This retrospective study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Saint-Etienne university hospital approved this study in May 2021 (IRBN832021/CHUSTE).

Consent to participate

Only patients who was not opposite were included.

Consent for publication

Not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Secchi, D., Albéric, J., Gobillot, S. et al. Balloon catheter vs oxytocin alone for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix: a multicenter, retrospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 306, 379–387 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06298-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06298-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation