Single-Balloon Compared With Double-Balloon Catheters for Induction of Labor

Abstract

Both the single-balloon and double-balloon catheters are equally efficacious for inducing labor. The double-balloon catheter may be associated with more operative deliveries.

Cervical ripening with the balloon catheter and the risk of subsequent preterm birth

“…Ripening is one of the most frequently used procedures in obstetrics. 12 The induction rate has increased remarkably in the past decade, with elective ripening becoming a substantial contributor to the increasing rate. 7,16 Cervical ripening is used to prime and dilate the cervix iatrogenically.…”

“…A detailed protocol for using the balloon catheter in our department was previously described and is similar with that described in the literature. 12 Balloon catheter was solely used in cases where spontaneous contractions exist while the cervix is unfavorable (bishop score o 7). Exclusion criteria included multiple gestations, fetal malformations diagnosed in the antepartum period that are incompatible with postpartum life and intrauterine fetal death.…”

“…The mechanism of action of a double-balloon catheter is achieved by the pressure being applied on both the external and internal os, and the dilator vector that is applied by the two balloons inflated on both sides of the cervix saves the need for traction. 11,12 In addition, the balloon catheter is thought to increase prostaglandin secretions, which is probably involved as well in cervical softening. 13 Previous studies have shown that induction of labor in general did not increase the risk of subsequent spontaneous preterm birth 14 and studies involving relatively small number of women induced with a single-balloon catheter did not show as well an increase in the risk of subsequent spontaneous preterm birth.…”

Double balloon catheter for induction of labour in Chinese women with previous caesarean section: one-year experience and literature review

“…17 Nevertheless, clinical data comparing DBC with Foley catheter in the presence of a caesarean scar are lacking, while those on intact uterus are scarce and inconclusive. 18,19 Table 4 summarises the results of studies using Foley catheter for IOL in the presence of a caesarean scar. 14,[20][21][22][23][24] It appears that DBC achieved comparable vaginal delivery rate (60.2% vs 58.0%) and similar uterine rupture/dehiscence rate (0.85 % vs 0.65%).…”

Preliminary Results of a Controlled Randomized Study on Double-Balloon Catheter vs. Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert for Induction of Labor with an Unfavorable Cervix

“…13 Buna karşın sezaryen doğum oranlarının benzer olması ve çift balonlu kateter maliyetinin daha fazla olması nedeni ile foley kateter kullanımı mekanik yöntemler arasında çift balonlu katetere göre daha tercih edilebilir gibi gö-zükmektedir. 19 Mekanik yöntemlerden farklı olarak prostaglandinler ile doğum indüksiyonunda yeterli uterin kontraksiyonların oluştuğu ve uygulamanın ilk saatlerinden itibaren kontraksiyonların başladığı ve ek oksitosin kullanımı gerekmediği birçok çalış-mada gösterilmiştir. 20,21 24 saat içinde doğumun gerçekleşmemesi ihtimali dinoprostona kıyasla çift balonlu kateter grubunda daha düşük oranlarda gerçekleşmekle birlikte biz çalışmamızda iki grup arasında bir fark izlemedik.…”