Comparison of the Effect of Misoprostol and Double-Balloon Catheter in Preinduction of Cervical Ripening among Postterm Women

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: Labor induction despite unfavorable cervix leads to a prolonged phase. Several methods are provided for preparing the cervix before induction of labor to improve the probability of success labor. This study aimed to compare the effect of double-balloon catheter and misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction in postterm pregnancy with unfavorable cervix in Shahid Beheshti hospital, Isfahan, Iran, during 2015-16.Methods: In a clinical trial study, 110 postterm women were randomly divided into two groups of 55. For labor induction in the first group, 100 µg misoprostol tablets and in the second group, double-balloon catheter were placed in the posterior cul-de-sac. Progress of labor was measured using Bishop score and compared between the two groups.Findings: During the intervention, Bishop score improved from 1.69 ± 1.05 to 8.62 ± 1.52 in misoprostol group and from 1.78 ± 0.98 to 7.93 ± 1.96 in double-balloon catheter group. Mean difference of Bishop score in the first and second groups was 6.92 ± 1.74 and 6.15 ± 1.87, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.025).Conclusion: Using double-balloon catheter is effective at least as misoprostol to induce labor in postterm pregnant women with unfavorable cervix. As misoprostol is associated with the risk of some side effects, using double-balloon catheter is more suitable for induction of labor.

Keywords

References

  1. Simpson KR, Thorman KE. Obstetric "conveniences": Elective induction of labor, cesarean birth on demand, and other potentially unnecessary interventions. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2005; 19(2): 134-44.
  2. Ali J, Hebbar S, Rai L. Alternatives to bishop score to predict successful induction of labour. Int J Curr Res 2015; 7(1): 11632-40.
  3. Wing DA, Jones MM, Rahall A, Goodwin TM, Paul RH. A comparison of misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172(6): 1804-10.
  4. Larranaga-Azcarate C, Campo-Molina G, Perez-Rodriguez AF, Ezcurdia-Gurpegui M. Dinoprostone vaginal slow-release system (Propess) compared to expectant management in the active treatment of premature rupture of the membranes at term: Impact on maternal and fetal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87(2): 195-200.
  5. el-Refaey H, Rajasekar D, Abdalla M, Calder L, Templeton A. Induction of abortion with mifepristone (RU 486) and oral or vaginal misoprostol. N Engl J Med 1995; 332(15): 983-7.
  6. Papanikolaou EG, Plachouras N, Drougia A, Andronikou S, Vlachou C, Stefos T, et al. Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2004; 2: 70.
  7. van GN, Scherjon S, LeCessie S, van Leeuwen JH, van RJ, Kanhai HH. A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction. BJOG 2004; 111(1): 42-9.
  8. Gregson S, Waterstone M, Norman I, Murrells T. A randomised controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term. BJOG 2005; 112(4): 438-44.
  9. Weeks A, Faundes A. Misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. ‎Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007; 99: S156-S159.
  10. Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Ho PC. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(2): 332-6.
  11. Egarter CH, Husslein PW, Rayburn WF. Uterine hyperstimulation after low-dose prostaglandin E2 therapy: tocolytic treatment in 181 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163(3): 794-6.
  12. Dalui R, Suri V, Ray P, Gupta I. Comparison of extraamniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84(4): 362-7.
  13. Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2006; 16(4): 276-9.
  14. Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 2003; 67(10): 2123-8.
  15. Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, Dy J. Induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35(9): 840-57.
  16. Kehl S, Ehard A, Berlit S, Spaich S, Sutterlin M, Siemer J. Combination of misoprostol and mechanical dilation for induction of labour: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 159(2): 315-9.
  17. Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 126.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 35, Issue 457 - Serial Number 457
November and December 2018
Pages 1707-1713

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 June 2017
  • Revise Date: 29 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics