Volume 31, Issue 3 (Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine-Autumn 2024)
Avicenna J Clin Med 2024, 31(3): 129-135 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Garrosi L, Daraei F, Gholami H. Comparison of the Effects of Traction Catheter and Normal Saline Amniotic Infusion on Cervical Ripening in Primiparous Women with A Bishop Score Less Than Four. Avicenna J Clin Med 2024; 31 (3) :129-135
URL: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-3078-en.html
URL: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-3078-en.html
1- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran
2- Department of Oncology, Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran ,gholami@zums.ac.ir
2- Department of Oncology, Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran ,
Abstract: (997 Views)
Background and Objective: Cervical ripening plays a crucial role in the success of labor induction. When the Bishop score is less than 4, the use of cervical ripening methods becomes necessary. Various mechanical and pharmacological methods exist for this purpose, but the comparison of their effectiveness and safety remains a subject of debate. The present study aimed to compare the effects of traction catheters and extra-amniotic saline infusion (EASI) on cervical readiness in primiparous mothers with a Bishop score of less than 4 who were candidates for pregnancy termination.
Materials and Methods: This single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on nulliparous women aged 18-35 years, with the gestational age of 37-42 weeks and Bishop scores less than 4, who were referred to the gynecology clinic of Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital in Zanjan City, Iran, in 2022. Women with a history of uterine surgery, active vaginal bleeding, rupture of membranes, and fetal anomalies were excluded from the study. The patients were randomly assigned to either the EASI or transcervical balloon catheter group. The time from oxytocin administration to complete dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, mode of delivery, patient satisfaction, maternal complications, and neonatal outcomes—including birth weight, Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, and need for NICU admission—were recorded.
Results: The average age of participants was approximately 27.4. Neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores and birth weight, indicated no significant differences (P>0.05). However, post-intervention Bishop scores were significantly higher in the traction group compared to the EASI group (P=0.03). A significant difference was observed in the Bishop score before and after intervention in the EASI and traction group (P<0.05). Moreover, satisfaction levels were significantly lower in the EASI group compared to the traction group (P=0.002).
Conclusion: The study concluded that maternal and neonatal complications were similar between the EASI and traction groups. Due to the better clinical outcomes and higher satisfaction levels associated with the traction method, it is recommended as the preferred approach for primiparous women.
Materials and Methods: This single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on nulliparous women aged 18-35 years, with the gestational age of 37-42 weeks and Bishop scores less than 4, who were referred to the gynecology clinic of Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital in Zanjan City, Iran, in 2022. Women with a history of uterine surgery, active vaginal bleeding, rupture of membranes, and fetal anomalies were excluded from the study. The patients were randomly assigned to either the EASI or transcervical balloon catheter group. The time from oxytocin administration to complete dilation, duration of the second stage of labor, mode of delivery, patient satisfaction, maternal complications, and neonatal outcomes—including birth weight, Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, and need for NICU admission—were recorded.
Results: The average age of participants was approximately 27.4. Neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores and birth weight, indicated no significant differences (P>0.05). However, post-intervention Bishop scores were significantly higher in the traction group compared to the EASI group (P=0.03). A significant difference was observed in the Bishop score before and after intervention in the EASI and traction group (P<0.05). Moreover, satisfaction levels were significantly lower in the EASI group compared to the traction group (P=0.002).
Conclusion: The study concluded that maternal and neonatal complications were similar between the EASI and traction groups. Due to the better clinical outcomes and higher satisfaction levels associated with the traction method, it is recommended as the preferred approach for primiparous women.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Extended Abstract [HTM 39 KB] (154 Download)
References
1. Simpson KR. Cervical ripening and labor induction and augmentation. Nurs Womens Health. 2020;24(4):S1-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nwh.2020.04.005
2. Glazer KB, Danilack VA, Field AE, Werner EF, Savitz DA. Term labor induction and cesarean delivery risk among obese women with and without comorbidities. Am J Perinatol. 2022;39(02):154-64. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714422
3. Rossi RM, Requarth E, Warshak CR, Dufendach KR, Hall ES, DeFranco EA. Risk calculator to predict cesarean delivery among women undergoing induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(3):559-68. PMID: 32028500 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003696
4. Coates D, Makris A, Catling C, Henry A, Scarf V, Watts N, et al. A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0228196. PMID: 31995603 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228196
5. Coates D, Homer C, Wilson A, Deady L, Mason E, Foureur M, et al. Induction of labour indications and timing: A systematic analysis of clinical guidelines. Women Birth. 2020;33(3):219-230. PMID: 31285166 DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.06.004
6. Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(5):418-29. PMID: 20605133 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.038
7. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, Van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):690-7. PMID: 15802392 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000152338.76759.38
8. Pierce S, Bakker R, Myers DA, Edwards RK. Clinical insights for cervical ripening and labor induction using prostaglandins. AJP Rep. 2018;8(4):e307-314. PMID: 30377555 DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675351
9. Tabasi Z, Mesdaghinia E, Abedzadeh-Kalahroudi M, Sehat M, Panahandeh A. Comparing the effects of vaginal misoprostol, laminaria, and extra amniotic saline infusion on cervical ripening and induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2020;63(3):261-9. PMID: 32489970 DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2020.63.3.261
10. Shahabuddin Y, Murphy DJ. Cervical ripening and labour induction: a critical review of the available methods. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;79:3-17. PMID: 34893438 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.11.008
11. McDonagh M, Skelly AC, Tilden E, Brodt ED, Dana T, Hart E, et al. Outpatient cervical ripening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(6):1091-101. PMID: 33752219 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004382
12. Mei-Dan E, Walfisch A, Valencia C, Hallak M. Making cervical ripening EASI: a prospective controlled comparison of single versus double balloon catheters. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2014;27(17):1765-70. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.879704
13. Agarwal M, Kose V. Comparative study of vaginal misoprostol and intra cervical Foley's catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening at term. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol .2017;6(4):1283-8. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171008
14. Ghanaie MM, Jafarabadi M, Milani F, Asgary SA, Karkan MF. A randomized controlled trial of foley catheter, extra-amniotic saline infusion and prostaglandin e2 suppository for labor induction. J Family Reprod Health. 2013;7(2):49-55. PMID: 24971103
15. Wilson P. A comparison of four methods of ripening the unfavourable cervix. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1978;85(12):941-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1978.tb15858.x
16. Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67(10):2123-8. PMID: 12776961
17. Mei-Dan E, Walfisch A, Suarez-Easton S, Hallak M. Comparison of two mechanical devices for cervical ripening: a prospective quasi-randomized trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(6):723-7. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2011.591459
18. Kashanian M, Akbarian A, Fekrat M. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with intravaginal misoprostol and Foley catheter cervical traction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;92(1):79-80. PMID: 16246342 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.09.010
19. Oskei AD, Bayat F, Haji ZM, Kolifarhood G. Individual and Combined Administration of Intravaginal Misoprostol and Transcervical Foley Catheter in Cervical Ripening in Nulliparous Women. Iranian Journal of Obestetrics and Gynecology. 2018;21(2):16-22. DOI: 10.22038/ijogi.2018.10703
20. Jayalakshmi T, Sunitha R. A Clinical Study of Efficacy and Safety of Foley’s Catheter Method of Induction of Labor. T Jayalakshmi, R Sunitha; Foley’s Catheter Method in Induction of Labor.J Cont Med A Dent Sept. 2021;9(3):52-6. Link
21. Flament E, Blanc-Petitjean P, Koch A, Deruelle P, Le Ray C, Sananès N. Women satisfaction on choosing the cervical ripening method: Oral misoprostol versus balloon catheter. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X. 2023;19:100202. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100202
22. Place K, Kruit H, Rahkonen L. Comparison of primiparous womenʼs childbirth experience in labor induction with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol–a prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(10):1153-62. PMID: 35933726 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14433
23. Sanchez-Ramos L, Levine LD, Sciscione AC, Mozurkewich EL, Ramsey PS, Adair CD, et al. Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3):S669-95. PMID: 38462252 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences
Published by UMSHA Press
Journal Tel: +988138380924
Publisher Tel:+988138380548
Website: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir
Email: s_ journal[at]umsha.ac.ir
