DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20202351

A comparative study of transcervical foley’s catheter with intracervical PGE2 gel for pre-induction cervical ripening

Anupma ., U. Karya, Harsha S. Gaikwad, Anamika ., Shalini .

Abstract


Background: To compare the efficacy of transcervical foley’s catheter with intracervical PGE2 gel for pre -induction cervical ripening.

Methods: It was a prospective interventional study conducted between April 2012 to April 2013 in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at L. L. R. M. medical college and S. V. B. P. hospital Meerut. A total of 80 pregnant women of ≥28 weeks of gestation with bishop score less than or equal to 4 and with various indications for induction of labour were randomly allocated to receive intracervical PGE2 gel (Group A) or transcervical foley’s catheter (Group B). Bishop score was repeated after 6 hours by the same person and the results were compared.

Results: The groups were comparable with respect to maternal age, gestational age, indications of induction of labour and initial bishop’s score. The intragroup results were calculated by Wilcoxon signed rank test and intergroup results were calculated by Mann Whitney U-test. The change in bishop score in PGE2 group was 3 and in foley’s group was 3.25 after 6 hours of induction (interquartile range of median) which is significant. The mean change in bishops score was 2.65 in PGE2 group and 3.1 in foley’s group after 6 hours of induction and was significant, however the bishop’s score was comparable in both the groups and statistically insignificant.

Conclusions: Both foley’s catheter and PGE2 gel are equally effective in pre-induction cervical ripening of cervix.


Keywords


Foley’s catheter, PGE2 gel, Pre-induction cervical ripening of cervix

Full Text:

PDF

References


WHO recommendation for induction of labour. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2011. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK131963 /. Accessed 11th February 2020.

National institute for health excellence. Induction of labour. Landon; NICE 2008. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70. Accessed on 11th February 2020.

Dewan F, Ara AM, Begum A. Foley’s catheter versus prostaglandin for induction of labour. Singap J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;32:56-63.

Dahiya K, Malik K, Dahiya A, Nanda S. Comparison of the efficacy of Foley catheter balloon with dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening at term. Int J Clin Med. 2012;3(6):527-31.

St. Onge RD, Conners GT. Preinduction cervical ripening: a comparison of intracervical PGE2 gel vs. the Foley’s catheter. AM J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;172:687-90.

Deshmukh VL, Yelikar KA, Deshmukh AB. Comparative study of intra-cervical foley’s catheter and PGE2 gel for pre-induction ripening (cervical). J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2011;61(4):418-21.

Ziyauddin F, Hakim S, Beriwal S. The transcervical foley catheter versus the vaginal prostaglandin e2 gel in the induction of labour in a previous one caesarean section - a clinical study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(1):140-3.

Dharmvijaya MN, Umashankar KM, Kavita G, Angure AG. Comparative study of intra-cervical Foleys catheter and PGE2 gel for pre-induction ripening. Int J Basic Appl Med Sci. 2013;3(1):247-53.

Sciscione AC, McCullough H, Manley JS, Shlossman PA, Pollock M, Colmorgen GH. A prospective randomised comparison of foley catheter insertion vs intracervical PGE2 gel for pre-induction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:55-9.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Clinical guidelines for induction of labour, Appendix-E. London: NICE; 2001. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/evidence/cg70-induction-of-labour-full-guideline. Accessed 11th February 2020.

Jozwiak M, Rengerink KO, Benthem M, Van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, De Graaf IM, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2095-103.