Literature DB >> 30175373

Patient satisfaction with the cervical ripening balloon as a method for induction of labour: a randomised controlled trial.

Sheri Ee-Lin Lim1, Toh Lick Tan1,2, Grace Yang Huang Ng1, Shephali Tagore3, Ei Ei Phyo Kyaw3, George Seow Heong Yeo3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Evidence has shown that balloon catheters are as effective as prostaglandins (PGE) in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours of the start of induction of labour (IOL), with lower rates of uterine hyperstimulation, and similar Caesarean section and infection rates. International guidelines recommend mechanical methods as a method of IOL. We designed a prospective randomised controlled study to evaluate patient acceptance of the cervical ripening balloon (CRB) for IOL.
METHODS: Suitable women with a singleton term pregnancy without major fetal anomaly suitable for vaginal delivery were recruited and randomised to receive the CRB or PGE on the day of IOL. Characteristics of the women, labour and birth outcomes were obtained from case notes. Pain and satisfaction scores were obtained by interviewing the women at IOL and after delivery. The main outcome measures were participant characteristics, labour and birth outcomes, pain score, satisfaction scores, and whether the participant would recommend the mode of IOL.
RESULTS: There was no difference in the pain score between the two groups at the start of IOL, but thereafter, pain scores were lower in the CRB group compared to the PGE group (4.5 ± 2.3 vs. 5.6 ± 2.4, p = 0.044). Women were equally satisfied with both methods and equally likely to recommend their method for IOL.
CONCLUSION: Patient experience of IOL with CRB or PGE was equally satisfactory, although pain during induction was lower in the CRB group. We found that both methods of IOL are acceptable to women and should be made available to provide more options. Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cook balloon; acceptability; cervical ripening; labour induction; mechanical ripening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30175373      PMCID: PMC6109826          DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2018097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Singapore Med J        ISSN: 0037-5675            Impact factor:   1.858


  14 in total

Review 1.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Raed Salim; Noah Zafran; Zohar Nachum; Gali Garmi; Nazik Kraiem; Eliezer Shalev
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Women's acceptance of a double-balloon device as an additional method for inducing labour.

Authors:  Sven Kehl; Grit Welzel; Anna Ehard; Sebastian Berlit; Saskia Spaich; Jörn Siemer; Marc Sütterlin
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2013-01-06       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 4.  Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section.

Authors:  Marta Jozwiak; Jodie M Dodd
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-03-28

5.  Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert.

Authors:  WenYan Wang; Jianlan Zheng; JingLi Fu; XiaoQiong Zhang; QinLing Ma; ShuiLan Yu; MeiYing Li; Li Hou
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2014-02-03

6.  Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios.

Authors:  G Shechter-Maor; G Haran; D Sadeh-Mestechkin; Y Ganor-Paz; M D Fejgin; T Biron-Shental
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 7.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

Authors:  Marta Jozwiak; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp; Anthony J Kelly; Ben Willem J Mol; Olivier Irion; Michel Boulvain
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-03-14

8.  Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel.

Authors:  C E Pennell; J J Henderson; M J O'Neill; S McChlery; S McCleery; D A Doherty; J E Dickinson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use.

Authors:  Anthony C Sciscione; Casey L Bedder; Matthew K Hoffman; Kelly Ruhstaller; Phillip A Shlossman
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chris Wilkinson; Pamela Adelson; Deborah Turnbull
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 3.007

View more
  4 in total

1.  Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the French Version of the EXIT to Measure Women's Experiences of Induction of Labor.

Authors:  Candy Guiguet-Auclair; Marion Rouzaire; Anne Debost-Legrand; Sigrid Dissard; Manon Rouille; Amélie Delabaere; Denis Gallot
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Conventional versus modified application of COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chaoyue Wen; Xuemin Liu; Ying Wang; Jun Wang
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-10-02       Impact factor: 3.105

Review 3.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

Authors:  Marieke Dt de Vaan; Mieke Lg Ten Eikelder; Marta Jozwiak; Kirsten R Palmer; Miranda Davies-Tuck; Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp; Ben Willem J Mol; Michel Boulvain
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-18

4.  Double Balloon Catheter (Plus Oxytocin) versus Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert for Term Rupture of Membranes: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RUBAPRO).

Authors:  Eric Devillard; Fanny Petillon; Marion Rouzaire; Bruno Pereira; Marie Accoceberry; Céline Houlle; Lydie Dejou-Bouillet; Pamela Bouchet; Amélie Delabaere; Denis Gallot
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 4.241

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.