Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of extra-amniotic Foley catheter with intra cervical Dinoprostone gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Study Design: A randomized, prospective study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, PGIMS Rohtak on 100 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor. Fifty patients were randomized to receive Dinoprostone gel and 50 patients to receive intracervical, extra-amniotic Foley catheter. Results: The two groups were comparable with respect to maternal age, parity, gestational age, indication for induction, and initial Bishop scores. Both groups had a significant change in Bishop score (4.18 ± 1.81 and 4.6 ± 1.48 respectively, p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference between the groups. Mean duration of induction to delivery was 18.51 ± 8.52 in Foley catheter group and 18.21 ± 11.13 in prostaglandin group, the difference being statistically insignificant. Among 50 cases of prostaglandin only single dose was sufficient for 23 (46%) cases to induce labor. But in 27 (54%) cases 2nd dose of prostaglandin were required. The expenditure of intervention showed that Rs. 325 were required for induction by prostaglandin as compared to Rs. 60/-for Induction by Foley's catheter and the difference was highly significant statistically There was no difference between the groups in mode of delivery, infant weight, apgar score and intrapartum complications. Conclusion: In conclusion, although both Foley catheter and dinoprostone gel appear to be effective agents for cervical ripening. Foley catheter causes less fetal distress, cheap and safety profile of Foley catheter is such that it can be used on an out patient basis, but not dinoprostone gel. These results make Foley catheter comparable or even superior to dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening specially in developing countries.

1. Introduction. Pulmonary embolism (PE ) and Deep vein thrombosis (DVT ) continues to be a cause of signicant morbidity and mortality which is also third 1 leading cardiovascular cause of death . If not treated properly it also leads to chronic pulmonary hypertension and cor pulmonale . Once DVT is diagnosed treatmet is required and consist of oral anticoagulation and inferior vena cava interruption via lter placement in patients with contraindication for anticoagulation treatment. In 2003 ,the U.S .Food and Drug Administration (FDA ) cleared retrievable inferior vena cave lters (rIVCFs) for clinical use , after that its uses exponentially increases . In parallel with these trends ,there has been growing awareness of device –related complication including fracture , penetration to adjuscent structure , migration , thrombosis and some time embolisation of fractured segment in heart that leads to cardiac 2 3 peforation , arrhythmia and death . In response , the FDA released safety communication in 2010 and 2014 advocating immediate retrieval of 4 lter once mechanical prophylaxis was no longer uses .However retrieval of lter remained rare with rates reported as low as 8.5 %. . Once lter remain in place for long duration, normal standard snare retrieval technique usually not work and alternative techniques like , Sling technique , 5 Excimer laser and Endobronchial forcep supported methods can be used . But prolong duration of lter implantion always associated with less chance of lter retrieval and associated with multiple complication .