Comparative Efficacy of Vaginal Dinoprostone And Cervical Foley’s Catheter For Induction of Labour In Women with One Previous Caesarean Section

Muhammad Nafe  Tahir; Roshnik Ayub; Hanya Awaba; Muhammad Yousaf Shah; Muhammad Ans; Junaid Tahir butt

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76i5.11767

Authors

Muhammad Nafe Tahir Department of Surgery, PAF Hospital Mushaf, Sargodha Pakistan
Roshnik Ayub Department of Gynecology, PAF Hospital Mushaf, Sargodha Pakistan
Hanya Awaba Department of Gynecology, Fauji Foundation Hospital Rawalpindi Pakistan
Muhammad Yousaf Shah Department of Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Sargodha/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Muhammad Ans 130 Med Bn Minimarg / National University of Medical Sciences Pakistan
Junaid Tahir butt 130 Med Bn Minimarg / National University of Medical Sciences Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76i5.11767

Keywords:

Induction of labor, Intracervical Foley’s catheter, Vaginal Dinoprostone

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Vaginal Dinoprostone and Cervical Foley’s Catheter for Induction of Labour In Women With One Previous Caesarean Section.

Study Design: Quasi-Experimental Study

Setting and Duration of Study: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, PAF Hospital Mushaf, Sargodha, Pakistan, from Mar to Nov 2023.

Methodology: A total of 120 women having a previous cesarean section undergoing the induction of labor with a gestational age of 37-41 weeks were included. Patients with multiple pregnancies, preterm labor, rupture of membranes, intrauterine fetal death, polyhydramnios, placenta previa, PIH, and GDM were excluded. All the included participants were randomly divided into two equal groups, i.e., Group-B (transcervical Foley’s catheter) & Group-A (vaginal Dinoprostone), by using the lottery method (randomization process). In both groups, the efficacy was noted.

Results: The study included individuals aged between 20 and 45 years, with an average age of 27.53 ± 4.31 years. Group-A women had an average age of 27.60 ± 5.12 years, while Group-B women had 27.40 ± 3.99 years. 20 to 30 years was the common age among most of the patients, 78 (65.0%). In this study, vaginal delivery within 24 hours was significantly higher in Group-A (Dinoprostone group) (96.67% vs. 76.67%, p = 0.0013) as compared to Group-B (Intracervical Foley’s catheter group).

Conclusion: This study concluded that the efficacy (in terms of vaginal delivery) of vaginal Dinoprostone is higher as compared to intracervical Foley’s catheter for the initiation of labor in prior one-scar pregnancies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Connolly KA, Kohari KS, Factor SH. A randomized trial of Foley balloon induction of labor trial in Multiparas (FIAT-M). Am J Perinatol 2017; 34(11): 1108-1114.

https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601445

2. Barda G, Ganer Herman H, Sagiv R, Bar J, Kovo M. Foley catheter versus intravaginal prostaglandins E2 for cervical ripening in women at term with an unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31(20): 2777-2781.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1360775

3. Yang F, Huang S, Long Y, Huang X. Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018; 44(1): 27-34.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13479

4. Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, Dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296(2): 167-179.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4404-x

5. Choo SN, Kanneganti A, Abdul Aziz MNDB, Loh L, Hargreaves C, Gopal V, et al. Mechanical dilatation of the cervix in a scarred uterus (MEDICS): the study protocol of a randomised controlled trial comparing a single cervical catheter balloon and prostaglandin PGE2 for cervical ripening and labour induction following caesarean delivery. BMJ Open 2019; 9(11): e028896.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028896

6. Thomas J, Fairclough A, Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2014(6): CD003101.

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003101.pub3.

7. Ramya D, Jaju PB. Comparative study of intra-vaginal misoprostol with intra-cervical Dinoprostone gel for induction of labour. Obstet Gynecol Int J 2017; 6(5): 00223.

https://doi.org/10.15406/ogij.2017.06.00223

8. Mlodawski J, Mlodawska M, Plusajska J, Galuszewska J, Glijer K, Gluszek S. Misoprostol vaginal insert and Foley catheter in labour induction - single center retrospective observational study of obstetrical outcome. Ginekol Pol 2020; 91(11): 700-703.

https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2020.0118

9. Weeks AD, Lightly K, Mol BW, Frohlich J, Pontefract S, Williams MJ. Evaluating misoprostol and mechanical methods for induction of labour: Scientific Impact Paper No. 68 April 2022. BJOG 2022; 129(8): e61-e65.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17136

10. Kerr RS, Kumar N, Williams MJ, Cuthbert A, Aflaifel N, Haas DM, et al. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2021(6): CD014484. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014484

11. Zhao G, Song G, Liu J. Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022; 22(1): 688.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04988-2

12. Orr L, Reisinger-Kindle K, Roy A, Levine L, Connolly K, Visintainer P, et al. Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and Oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223(5): 743.e1-743.e17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007

13. Sangram Singh B, Joshi K, Pajai S. Intra-cervical Foley balloon catheter versus prostaglandins for the induction of labour: a literature review. Cureus 2023; 15(1): e33855.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33855

14. Mathuriya G, Kushwaha SPS, Pradhan S. Comparative study of induction of labour with Dinoprostone gel versus mechanical dilatation in unfavorable cervix (low Bishops Score). Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017; 6(10): 4363-4366.

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20174410

15. West HM, Jozwiak M, Dodd JM. Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2017(6): CD009792.

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009792.pub3

16. Elasy AN, Ibrahem MA, Elhawy LL, Hamed BM. Vaginal misoprostol versus combined intracervical foley's catheter and Oxytocin infusion for second trimester pregnancy termination in women with previous cesarean sections: a randomized control trial. J Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 42(7): 2962-2969.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2022.2118572

17. Ezimokhai M, Nwabinelli JN. The use of Foley's catheter in ripening the unfavourable cervix before induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980; 87(4): 281-286.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1980.tb04540.x

18. Chowdhary A, Bagga R, Kalra J, Jain V, Saha SC, Kumar P. Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of Dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomized study. J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 39(4): 461-467.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2018.1534090