Comparison of the Efficacy of Foley Catheter Balloon with Dinoprostone Gel for Cervical Ripening at Term

Krishna Dahiya, Kanika Malik, Archit Dahiya, Smiti Nanda

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pt.BDS, PGIMS, Rohtak & MMIMSR, Mullana, Ambala, India..

DOI: 10.4236/ijcm.2012.36095                

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of extra-amniotic Foley catheter with intra cervical Dinoprostone gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Study Design: A randomized, prospective study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PGIMS Rohtak on 100 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor. Fifty patients were randomized to receive Dinoprostone gel and 50 patients to receive intracervical, extra-amniotic Foley catheter. Results: The two groups were comparable with respect to maternal age, parity, gestational age, indication for induction, and initial Bishop scores. Both groups had a significant change in Bishop score (4.18 ± 1.81 and 4.6 ± 1.48 respectively, p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference between the groups. Mean duration of induction to delivery was 18.51 ± 8.52 in Foley catheter group and 18.21 ± 11.13 in prostaglandin group, the difference being statistically insignificant. Among 50 cases of prostaglandin only single dose was sufficient for 23 (46%) cases to induce labor. But in 27 (54%) cases 2nd dose of prostaglandin were required. The expenditure of intervention showed that Rs. 325 were required for induction by prostaglandin as compared to Rs. 60/- for Induction by Foley’s catheter and the difference was highly significant statistically There was no difference between the groups in mode of delivery, infant weight, apgar score and intrapartum complications. Conclusion: In conclusion, although both Foley catheter and dinoprostone gel appear to be effective agents for cervical ripening. Foley catheter causes less fetal distress, cheap and safety profile of Foley catheter is such that it can be used on an out patient basis, but not dinoprostone gel. These results make Foley catheter comparable or even superior to dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening specially in developing countries.

Keywords

Foley Catheter; Dinoprostone Gel; Cervival Ripening

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	B. A. Brindley and R. J. Sokol, “Induction and Augmentation of Labor. Basis and Methods for Current Practice,” Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, Vol. 43, No. 12, 1988, pp. 730-743. doi:10.1097/00006254-198812000-00004
[2]	K. F. Trofatter, “Cervical Ripening,” Clinical Obstetrics abd Gynecology, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1992, pp. 476-486. doi:10.1097/00003081-199209000-00007
[3]	J. E. Stempel, R. P. Prins and S. Dean, “Preinduction Cervical Ripening: A Randomized Prospective Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravaginal and Intracervical Prostaglandin E2 Gel,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 176, No. 6, 1997, pp. 1305-1312. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70350-8
[4]	N. Uldbjerg, G. Ekman and A. Malmstrom, “Ripening of the Human Uterine Cervix Related to Changes in Glyco-saminoglycans and Collagenolytic Activity,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 147, No. 6, 1983, pp. 662-666.
[5]	K. F. Trofatter, D. Bowers, R. N. Standby, A. Gall and A. P. Killam, “Preinduction Cervical Ripening with Pros-taglandin E2 Gel,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 153, No. 3, 1985, pp. 268-271.
[6]	R. P. Prins, R. N. Bolton and C. Mark, “Cervical Ripening with Intravaginal Prostaglandin E2 Gel,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 63, 1984, pp. 697-702.
[7]	C. James, A. Peedicayil and L. Seshardi, “Use of the Foley Catheter as a Cervical Ripening Agent Prior to Induction of Labor,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1994, pp. 229-232. doi:10.1016/0020-7292(94)90566-5
[8]	D. A. Guinn, A. R. Goepfert, M. Christine, J. Owen and J. C. Hauth, “Extra-Amniotic Saline, Infusion and Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel for Cervical Ripening,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 182, 2000, pp. 1039-1044.
[9]	D. J. Sherman, E. Frenkel, J. Tovbin, S. Arieli, E. Caspi and I. Bukovsky, “Ripening of the Unfavorable Cervix with Extra-Amniotic Catheter Balloon: Clinical Experience and Review,” Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, Vol. 51, No. 10, 1996, pp. 621-627. doi:10.1097/00006254-199610000-00022
[10]	F. Arias, “Pharmacology of Oxytocin and Prostaglandins,” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2000, pp. 455-468. doi:10.1097/00003081-200009000-00006
[11]	S. K. Sandhu and R. Tung, “Use of Foley’s Catheter to Improve the Cervical Score Prior to Induction of Labour,” Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 34, 1984, pp. 669-672.
[12]	M. Ezimokhai and J. N. Nwabinelli, “The Use of Foley’s Catheter in Ripening the Unfavourable Cervix Prior to Induction of Labour,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 87, No. 4, 1980, pp. 281-286.
[13]	R. D. St. Onge and G. T. Connors, “Preinduction Cervical Ripening: A Comparison of Intracervical Prostaglandin E2 Gel versus the Foley Catheter,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 172, No. 2, 1995, pp. 687- 690. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)90594-4
[14]	M. Rashid, A. Begum, S. B. Chowdhury and S. Chowdhury, “Induction of Labor by Foley’s Catheter Method. A Clinical Study of Forty Cases,” Bangladesh Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1994, pp. 16- 21.
[15]	Z. Vaknin, Y. Kurzweil and D. Sherman, “Foley Catheter Balloon vs Locally Applied Prostaglandins for Cervical Ripening and Labour Induction: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 203, No. 5, 2010, pp. 418-429. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.038