Comparing labor induction and cervical ripening methods including vaginal misoprostol, traction by Foley catheter and a combination of the two

Fekrat, Mohsen; Kashanian, Maryam; Hashem-Alavi, Seyyed Mohammad; Ali-Nezhad, Samieh

Comparing labor induction and cervical ripening methods including vaginal misoprostol, traction by Foley catheter and a combination of the two

Vol. 8, Issue 2, / July-September 2007
(pages 149-154)

Mohsen Fekrat: - Department of Obs. & Gyn., Shahid Akbar-Abadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Maryam Kashanian: - Department of Obs. & Gyn., Shahid Akbar-Abadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Seyyed Mohammad Hashem-Alavi: - Department of Obs. & Gyn., Shahid Akbar-Abadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Samieh Ali-Nezhad: - Department of Obs. & Gyn., Shahid Akbar-Abadi Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Received: 7/1/2007 Accepted: 7/1/2007 - Publisher : Avicenna Research Institute

Other Format

Abstract

Introduction: Finding the most suitable method for cervical ripening in patients with all the indications for terminating their pregnancy, is a considerable problem in obstetrics. The objective of this study was to compare intravaginal misoprostol, traction on the cervix with a Foley catheter and a combination of the two methods for the induction of labor. Materials & Methods: This randomized clinical trial was performed at Shahid Akbar-Abadi teaching Hospital from March 2004 to February 2005, on 300 pregnant women with a gestational age of 28 weeks, who had the indications for terminating their pregnancy. All of the cases had a Bishop score of 5 and were singletons. In 100 patients (Group 1), misoprostol (25g every 3 hours up to a maximum dose of 6) was used intravaginally. In the next 100 patients (Group 2), a No. 16 Foley’s catheter was introduced into the intracervical canal, its bulb being filled with 30 ml of distilled water, to exert traction on the cervix. In the last 100 patients (Group 3), a combination of the two methods was used. The time interval between the start of the methods to delivery, duration of the active phase of labor, the interval between the beginning of the methods to beginning of the active phase, cesarean section rates and neonatal Apgar scores were compared in the three groups. The obtained data were statistically analyzed by SPSS software employing χ2, one-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups according to age, gestational age, parity and Bishop scores. The interval between the beginning of the methods and delivery was shorter in the misoprostol group (p0.001)_10.53 hours in misoprostol group, 12.32.4 hours in the Foley catheter group and 11.72.5 hours in the combination group. The duration of active phase in the misoprostol group was less than the Foley catheter group (p0.001)_ 5.51.9 hours in the misoprostol group, 6.61.6 hours in the Foley catheter group and 6.11.5 hours in the combination group. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups regarding the interval between the beginning of the methods and the beginning of the active phase, neonatal Apgar score or cesarean section rates. Conclusion: Misoprostol and Foley catheters are good methods for cervical ripening and the induction of labor, but the combination of the two methods does not increase their effectiveness and there seems to be no synergistic effects.

Keywords: Misoprastol, Foley catheter, Labor induction, Cervical ripening, Prostaglandin E1, Bishop score, Delivery time, Cesarean section, Termination, Pregnancy

To cite this article:

Fekrat M, Kashanian M, Hashem-Alavi SM, Ali-Nezhad S. Comparing labor induction and cervical ripening methods including vaginal misoprostol, traction by Foley catheter and a combination of the two. J Reprod Infertil. 2007;8(2):149-154.

References

Whng DA, Ham D, Paul RH. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gyncol. 1999;180(5):1155-60. [PubMed]
Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption, kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90(1):88-92. [PubMed]
Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, stan C, lirion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD001233. [PubMed]
Chung JH, Huang WH, Rumney PJ, Garite TJ, Nage-otte MP. A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter and combination misoprostol-Foley catheter for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(4):1031-5. [PubMed]
Culver J, Strauss RA, Brody S, Dorman K, Timlin S, Mc Mahon MJ. A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatal. 2004;21(3):139-46. [PubMed]
Greybush M, Singleton C, Atlas RO, Balducci J, Rust OA. Preinduction cervical ripening techniques com-pared. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(1):11-7. [PubMed]
Rust OA, Greybush M, Atlas RO, Jones KJ, Balducci J. Preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized trial of intravaginal misoprostol alone vs. a combination of transcervical Foley balloon and intravaginal misopros-tol. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(10):899-904. [PubMed]
Adeniji OA, Oladokun A, Olayemi O, Adeniji OI, Odukogbe AA, Ogunbode O, et al: Preinduction cervi-cal ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intra-vaginal misoprostol. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(2): 134-9. [PubMed]
Barrilleaux PS, Bofill JA, Terrone DA, Magann EF, May WL, Morrison JC. Cervical ripening and induc-tion of labor with misoprostol dinoprostone gel and a foley catheter: a randomized trail of 3 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1124-9. [PubMed]
Levy R, Kanengiser B, Furman B, Ben Arie A, Brown D, Hagay ZJ. A randomized trial comparing a 30 ml and an 80 ml Foly catheter balloon for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5): 1632-6. [PubMed]
Ghezzi F, Massimo F, Raio L, Di Naro E, Balestreri D, Bolis P. Extra-amniotic Foley catheter and prosta-glandin E2 gel for cervical ripening at term gestation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;97(2):183-7. [PubMed]
Dalui R, Suri V, Ray P, Gupta I. Comparison of extraamniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prosta- glandin Egel for preinduction cervical ripening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(4):362-7. [PubMed]
Bujold E, Blackwell SC, Gauthier RJ. Cervical ripen-ing with transcervical foley catheter and the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(1):18-23. [PubMed]
Scisione AC, Nguyen L, Manley J, Pollock M, Mass B, Colmorgen G. A randomized comparison of trans-cervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97(4):603-7. [PubMed]
Niromanesh S, Mosavi-Jarrahi A, Samkhaniani F. Intracervical Foley catheter balloon vs prostaglandin in preinduction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;81(1):23-7. [PubMed]
Sciscione AC, Mc Cullough H, Manley JS, Shlossman PA, Pollock M, Colmorgen GH. A prospective, rando-mized comparison of Foley catheter insertion versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180 (1 pt1):55-60. [PubMed]
Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Trancervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an out-patient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98(5 pt 1):751-6. [PubMed]
Guinn DA, Davies JK, Jones RO, Sullivan L, Wolf D. Labor induction in women with an unfavorable Bishop score: randomized controlled trial of intrauterine Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin infusion versus Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion with concurrent oxytocin infusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):225-9. [PubMed]