Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel and Extra-Amniotic Foley's Catheter For Induction of Labour

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The uterus remains quiescent throughout 9 months and begins to act on its own when full term is approached. Almost 50% women deliver in the duration of one week before and after the calculated EDD; and induction of labour is needed in about 20% of women: to increase the success of labour induction, to reduce the duration and complications of labour and to diminish the rate of caesarean sections. Cervical ripening is needed before induction of labour. There are many methods for induction of labour; however till date, none of them can claimed to be the best. To compare the AIM OF PRESENT STUDY: safety and efcacy of Dinoprostone gel versus intracervical foley's catheter for ripening of cervix and induction of labour. Compara MATERIAL AND METHODS: tive prospective study was conducted on 400 full term uncomplicated primigravida women needing induction of labour between January 2019 to June 2020 in department of obstetrics & gynecology at GMC Kota in Rajasthan.Group A: 200 women induced with Dinoprostone gel and Group B: 200 women induced with extra-amniotic Foley's catheter. Baseline characteristics like maternal age, gestational age, indication for induction were comparable in both the groups. The mean induction to delivery interval was shorter in RESULT: group A (12.69 ± 3.64 hours) as compared to Group B (18.17 ± 3.17 hours) and this difference was statistically highly signicant (P = 0.0001). There was no signicant difference observed in mode of delivery, labour progress at 18 hours, indication for caesarean section, maternal side effects, mean birth weight, Apgar score at 5 mins, number of NICU admissions between the two groups. The number of vaginal deliveries we CONCLUSION: re similar in both the groups but mean induction to delivery interval was signicantly shorter with Dinoprostone gel. However, the maternal and fetal outcomes were better in Foley's catheter group although the difference was not statistically signicant