Write your message
Volume 4, Issue 3 (Summer 2019)                   J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res 2019, 4(3): 105-110 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shoja S, Yousefi Sharami S R, Shahgheibi S, Zand-Vakili F, Zare S, Roshani D et al . Contrastive Analysis of Vaginal Misoprostol and Foley Catheter in Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction. J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res. 2019; 4 (3) :105-110
URL: http://jogcr.com/article-1-250-en.html
Abstract:   (1066 Views)

Background & Objective: The induction of labor is needed to terminate pregnancy in pregnant women lacking labor pain. Common indications of labor induction include rapture of membranes without labor pain, hypertension, fetus’ unreassuring conditions and post-term pregnancies. The purpose of this study is to compare and contrast vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter in cervical ripening and the induction of labor.

Materials & Methods: This study was done on pregnant women who showed pregnancy termination indication for any cause, using randomized clinical trial method. Inclusion criteria in this study included gestational age equal to or greater than 37 weeks and ultrasonography of the first trimester, unfit cervix Bishop Score 1 equal to or less than 4, single-shot pregnancies, vertex display, intact membrane and the subject’s consent to participate in the research. Patients were divided into two equal groups of 60. Oxytocin was used for the induction of labor if the patient did not enter the active phase.

Results: In this study, the average age of women in Foley catheter group and misoprostol group were 27.03±4.04 and 26.85±3.49 respectively in which there was no meaningful difference statistically. However, the average age of women with cesarean delivery was statistically more than the average age of women with NVD. Bishop score 2 has demonstrated more increase in comparison to Bishop score 1 among Foley catheter group rather than misoprostol group. The average of labor speed, the number of women with NVD and the failure of induction in Foley catheter group exceeded those in misoprostol group.

Conclusion:  According to the results gained in this study, Foley catheter application for induction of labor had better outcomes in comparison to vaginal misoprostol. It can even be a better alternative for vaginal misoprostol; hereby the side effects of misoprostol such as possible tachysystol and fetus distress can be prevented.

Full-Text [PDF 222 kb]   (101 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (310 Views)  
Systematic Review: Original Research | Subject: Obstetrics and Gynecology
Received: 2019/03/20 | Accepted: 2018/07/28 | Published: 2019/09/27

1. Zargar M, Ali Nazari M, Hormozy L, Madovi Mohammadi H. Efficacy of transcervical foley catheter and laminaria on induction of labor in post-term pregnancy: a clinical study. Tehran University Medical Journal. 2014 Jun 1;72(3).
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. National vital statistics reports. 2003 Dec 17;52(10):1-13.
3. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Nauth JC, Gilstrap LC, Wenstrom KD. Williams' Obstetrics. 22nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 2005; 535-47
4. Afolabi BB, Oyeneyin OL, Ogedengbe OK. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2005 Jun;89(3):263-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.02.010] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.02.010] [PMID]
5. Rath W. A clinical evaluation of controlled-release dinoprostone for cervical ripening-a review of current evidence in hospital and outpatient settings. Journal of perinatal medicine. 2005 Dec 1;33(6):491-9. [DOI:10.1515/JPM.2005.087] [DOI:10.1515/JPM.2005.087]
6. Karjane NW, Brock EL, Walsh SW. Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006 Feb 1;107(2):234-9. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000198629.44186.c8] [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000198629.44186.c8] [PMID]
7. Bhatiyani B, Parul S, Kansaria JJ, Parulekar SV. Induction of labor, Foley's catheter. Bombay. Hospital J. 2003;45(2):297-300.
8. Balci O, Mahmoud AS, Ozdemir S, Acar A. Induction of labor with vaginal misoprostol plus oxytocin versus oxytocin alone. Int J Gyn & Obs. 2010 Jul 1;110(1):64-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.02.004] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.02.004] [PMID]
9. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(2):CD000451. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000451] [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000451] [PMCID]
10. Stovall TG. Early pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy. In: Berek JS. Berek & Novak's. Gynecology, 14th ed. Philadelphia: Lipincott, williams & Wilkins 2007: 601.
11. Lattey KR, Kelly AJ, Ghosh A. Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016 Dec;2016(12).
12. Yazdani SH, Javadian M, Bouzari ZS, Ghanbari S. Intracervical Foley Catheter Balloon Versus Prostaglandin E2 in Preinduction Cervical Ripening. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2010 Sep 15;20(79):56-61.
13. Dalui R, Suri V, Ray P, Gupta I. Comparison of extraamniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E 2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2005 Jan 1;84(4):362-7. [DOI:10.1080/j.0001-6349.2005.00662.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1080/j.0001-6349.2005.00662.x] [PMID]
14. Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP. 2006 Apr;16(4):276-9.
15. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Tomera S, Uccella S, Lischetti B, Bolis PF. Cervical ripening with the foley catheter. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007; 97: 105-109. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.014] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.014] [PMID]
16. Chen W1, Xue J2, Peprah MK3, Wen SW4,5, Walker M4,5, Gao Y6, Tang Y7 A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):346-54. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456. Epub 2015 Nov 5 [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13456] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13456] [PMID]
17. Jozwiak M, Ten Eikelder M, Rengerink KO, De Groot C, Feitsma H, Spaanderman M, Van Pampus M, De Leeuw JW, Mol BW, Bloemenkamp K, PROBAAT Study Group. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. American journal of perinatology. 2014 Feb;31(02):145-56. [DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1341573] [PMID] [DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1341573] [PMID]
18. Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, Parveen S. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. International journal of reproductive medicine. 2015;2015. [DOI:10.1155/2015/845735] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1155/2015/845735] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Chen W1, Xue J2, Peprah MK3, Wen SW4,5, Walker M4,5, Gao Y6, Tang Y7 A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):346-54. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456. Epub 2015 Nov 5 [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13456] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.13456] [PMID]
20. Mallah F. Comparing the Efficacy and Side Effects of Trans-Cervical Catheter and Vaginal Misoprostol on Cervical Ripening. aumj. 2016; 5 (3) :149-156 URL: [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.aums.5.3.149] [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.aums.5.3.149]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research (JOGCR)

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb | Piblisher: Farname Inc.