Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE S1 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Efficacy of Pervaginal Misoprostol, Intracervical Foley Catheter, Intracervical Dinoprostone on Induction of Labor

Hanumant V Nipanal, Praveen Uppar, Soubhagya R Talawar, S Susmitha

Keywords : Dinoprostone, Foley catheter, Misoprostol

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2358

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 06-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Induction methods are many such as intravaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, intracervical dinoprostone, etc. Presently, a very limited number of studies are available for comparing all three popular methods intravaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, and intracervical dinoprostone. Aims and objectives: Comparison of efficacy of pervaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, and intracervical dinoprostone on induction of labor and fetomaternal outcome. Materials and methods: It is a prospective study conducted on 273 patients divided into 3 groups, and each group included 90 study subjects. • Group I – Foley catheter of No. 18 introduced in the cervical canal. The Foley catheter balloon is filled with 50 mL of normal saline. • Group II – Dinoprostone 2.5 mL of 0.5 mg injected into the cervical canal below the internal os under aseptic precautions. • Group III – Tablet misoprostol 25-µg pervaginally put in the posterior fornix. Continuous observation of the patients will be done in all groups. Results: Success of induction was 100% in the Foley catheter, 92.3% in dinoprostone gel, and 90% in the misoprostol group, respectively. Vaginal delivery occurred—83.51% in Foley catheter, 59.34% in dinoprostone gel, and 73.62% in the misoprostol groups, respectively. The mean induction to delivery interval time was 16.78 ± 6.5 hours in the Foley catheter group, 12.87 ± 6.41 hours in the dinoprostone gel group, and 11.16 ± 5.97 in the misoprostol group. Conclusion: Foley catheter is superior to dinoprostone gel and misoprostol in achieving vaginal delivery.


PDF Share
  1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al. Induction and augmentation of labor. In: Williams Obstetrics, 25th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
  2. Misra R. Induced labor: Misra R. Ian Donald's, 8th edition. Wolters Kluwer: 2020, pp. 578–595.
  3. Tripathi KD. Essentials of Medical Pharmacology, 8th edition. Jaypee Brothers Medical; 2023, pp. 329–334.
  4. Chia HM, Tan PC, Tan SP, et al. Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervix: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020;20(1):330. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03029-0.
  5. Jonsson M, Hellgren C, Wiberg–Itzel E, et al. Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90(9):997–1004. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01197.x.
  6. Schoen CN, Saccone G, Backley S, et al. Increased single-balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97(9):1051–1060. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13353.
  7. de Vaan MDT, Blel D, Bloemenkamp KWM, et al. Induction of labor with Foley catheter and risk of subsequent preterm birth: Follow-up study of two randomized controlled trials (PROBAAT-1 and -2). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021;57(2):292–297. DOI: 10.1002/uog. 23117.
  8. Leigh S, Granby P, Haycox A, et al. Foley catheter vs. oral misoprostol to induce labour among hypertensive women in India: A cost-consequence analysis alongside a clinical trial. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2018;125(13):1734–1742. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15285.
  9. Maoz O, Wainstock T, Sheiner E, et al. Immediate perinatal outcomes of postterm deliveries. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32(11): 1847–1852. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1420773.
  10. Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Int J Reprod Med 2015;2015:845735. DOI: 10.1155/2015/845735.
  11. Madaan M, Agrawal S, Puri M, et al. Is low dose vaginal misoprostol better than dinoprostone gel for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(9):OC31–OC34. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8101.4906.
  12. Dasgupta E, Singh G. Vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol with estradiol for labor induction: A prospective double blind study. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2012;62(1):47–51. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-012-0156-6.
  13. Chowdhary A, Bagga R, Kalra J, et al. Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: A randomised study. J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol 2019;39(4):461–467. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1534090.
  14. Young DC, Delaney T, Armson BA, et al. Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial. PloS One 2020;15(1):e0227245. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227245.
  15. Bennett KN, Park H, Cioffi J, et al. A comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29(22): 3732–3736. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2016.1142965.
  16. Cazorla MQA, Marques APM, Sanmartin JM, et al. Effectiveness, safety and costs of labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. Clin Investig 2017;07(01). DOI: 10.4172/clinical-investigation.1000108.
  17. Ghanaie MM, Jafarabadi M, Milani F, et al. A randomized controlled trial of foley catheter, extra-amniotic saline infusion and prostaglandin e2 suppository for labor induction. J Fam Reprod Health 2013;7(2):49–55. PMID: 24971103.
  18. Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: A randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13(1):25. PMID: 23356673.
  19. Bhatiyani BR, Gandhewar MR, Kapsikar S, et al. A study comparing vaginal misoprostol alone with vaginal misoprostol in combination with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(2):485. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20170367.
  20. Garba I, Muhammed AS, Muhammad Z, et al. Induction to delivery interval using transcervical Foley catheter plus oxytocin and vaginal misoprostol: A comparative study at Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Kano, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2016;15(3):114–119. DOI: 10.4103/1596-3519.188890.
  21. Hamdan M, Shuhaina S, Hong JGS, et al. Outpatient vs inpatient Foley catheter induction of labor in multiparas with unripe cervixes: A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021;100(11): 1977–1985. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14247.
  22. 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):418–421. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-011-0063-2. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-011-0063-2.
  23. Benalcazar–Parra C, Monfort–Orti R, Ye–Lin Y, A, et al. Comparison of labour induction with misoprostol and dinoprostone and characterization of uterine response based on electrohysterogram. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32(10):1586–1594. DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1410791.
  24. Roudsari FV, Ayati S, Ghasemi M, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Iran J Pharm Res 2011;10(1):149–154. PMID: 24363694.
  25. Ayati S, Hasanzadeh E, Pourali L, et al. Sublingual misoprostol versus foley catheter for cervical ripening in women with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension: A randomized control trial. Int J Reprod Biomed 2019;17(7):513–520. DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v17i7.4863.
  26. Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander VM, et al. Management of prolonged pregnancy by induction with a foley catheter. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94(6):608–614. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12632.
  27. Tabasi Z, Mesdaghinia E, Abedzadeh–Kalahroudi M, et al. 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):261–269. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2020.63.3.261.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.