Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background The induction of labour is an increasingly common procedure in the obstetrics field. Various methods have been used to induce labour, among which balloon catheters play an important role. Whether the specifically designed double-balloon catheter is better than the single-balloon device in terms of efficacy, efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction remains controversial. Identifying even small differences between these two devices could be useful to guide clinical practices, to further explore their mechanisms, and to promote a better understanding of the optimal methods for inducing labour. Methods Using the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study designs (PICOS) principle, we searched the PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, SCI, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrial.gov, and CDSR databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception through February 14, 2018. The primary outcome was the caesarean delivery rate, and the secondary outcomes focused on efficacy, efficiency, safety, and patient satisfaction. The relative risks or mean differences, including their 95% confidence intervals, were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. All statistical analyses were completed with RevMan version 5.3. Results From a total of 1326 articles, 7 RCTs involving 1159 women were included. There were no significant differences in primary outcomes (RR, 0.88 [0.65, 1.2]; p-value, 0.43) or secondary outcomes identified between single- and double-balloon catheters. However, heterogeneity existed for some aspects. Conclusion Both kinds of balloon catheter have similar levels of efficacy, efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction; however, the single-balloon method is considered to be more cost-effective.
Background The induction of labour is an increasingly common procedure in the obstetrics field. Various methods have been used to induce labour, among which balloon catheters play an important role. Whether the specifically designed double-balloon catheter is better than the single-balloon device in terms of efficacy, efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction remains controversial. Identifying even small differences between these two devices could be useful to guide clinical practices, to further explore their mechanisms, and to promote a better understanding of the optimal methods for inducing labour. Methods Using the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study designs (PICOS) principle, we searched the PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, SCI, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrial.gov, and CDSR databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception through February 14, 2018. The primary outcome was the caesarean delivery rate, and the secondary outcomes focused on efficacy, efficiency, safety, and patient satisfaction. The relative risks or mean differences, including their 95% confidence intervals, were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. All statistical analyses were completed with RevMan version 5.3. Results From a total of 1326 articles, 7 RCTs involving 1159 women were included. There were no significant differences in primary outcomes (RR, 0.88 [0.65, 1.2]; p-value, 0.43) or secondary outcomes identified between single- and double-balloon catheters. However, heterogeneity existed for some aspects. Conclusion Both kinds of balloon catheter have similar levels of efficacy, efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction; however, the single-balloon method is considered to be more cost-effective.
BackgroundIntracervical insertion of a Foley catheter (FC) has shown to be a safe, effective and relatively feasible mechanical method of cervical priming in induction of labour (IOL). We evaluated indications, effectiveness, patient acceptability and outcomes of FC use in IOL adhering to the ward protocol in our unit.MethodsA clinical audit with a patient satisfaction survey conducted between July and September 2013 in University Obstetric Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Patients selected for IOL for obstetric reasons were primed with Foley as per ward protocol. All had singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation, intact membranes and period of gestation of 37 weeks or above. Women with a history of more than one caesarean section or uterine surgery, low-lying placenta and fetal growth restriction were excluded. Subjects who had a Modified Bishop Score (MBS) of less than 3, a 16Fr FC was inserted into cervical canal. Catheter was left undisturbed until spontaneous expulsion or no longer than 48 h. In women with MBS of less than 6 at 48 h after FC insertion, 3 mg prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet was used subsequently. Artificial membrane rupture with or without oxytocin was used if MBS of 6 or more and in women not in labour 24 h after prostaglandins. Patient satisfaction for Foley insertion was assessed with regards to the degree of comfort using a validated visual analogue scale (0–10).ResultsThere were a total of 910 deliveries during the study period. Fifty-six women were primed with FC. Thirty-two (57%) were nulliparous. During induction of labour, 53(95%) reported mild or no discomfort. MBS of 6 or more was achieved in 36/56 (64%) Foley insertions. Twenty needed further intervention with prostaglandins. FC only group had 5 caesarean sections and 31 vaginal deliveries and Foley/prostaglandin group had 7 caesarean sections and 13 vaginal deliveries. Of the 24 women who were induced due to completion of 41 weeks of gestation with otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies, 17 had MBS >6 post priming with Foley and 20 (83%) delivered vaginally. Subjects who had Foley only had a lesser chance of having a caesarean delivery compared to subjects who had Foley followed by prostaglandin (relative risk = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.15–1.09, P = 0.09).DiscussionFC is a good choice for pre-induction cervical priming with high patient comfort. FC becomes more important in IOL cost reduction in our setting. FC alone seems to be an effective for IOL in women who have completed 41 weeks of gestation with otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies.
The use of a Foley catheter is one of the oldest known methods of labor induction. Therefore, protocols using different volumes of Foley catheter balloons have been developed and tested to accurately determine their effectiveness. In this study, it was decided to retrospectively evaluate two induction of labor (IOL) protocols. The last 300 eligible patients who met the criteria and underwent the low-volume balloon protocol (40–60 mL) IOL were selected. Then next, 300 patients who met the criteria and underwent high-volume balloon (80–100 mL) IOL were selected. Outcomes included time to delivery and parturition type, oxytocin augmentation, operative deliveries and application of intrapartum anesthesia. Overall, the majority of patients delivered within 24 h. Patients who received a high-volume Foley catheter had statistically significantly more vaginal deliveries. The mean-time to delivery in the high-volume catheter group was statistically significantly shorter than in the low-volume catheter group. Patients who received a high-volume Foley catheter required statistically significantly less oxytocin augmentation during induction of labor compared to patients with a low-volume Foley catheter. Regardless of the balloon volume used, the percentage of operative deliveries remained at a similar, low level (8.36% and 2.14%). Regardless of the catheter volume used, the majority of patients chose epidural over intravenous anesthesia. In conclusion, a high-volume balloon Foley catheter IOL is characterized by an increased percentage of vaginal deliveries, shortened time to delivery regardless of the type of delivery, and lower need for oxytocin augmentation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.