159: Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double balloon catheter for labor induction in term isolated oligohydramnios

Shechter‐Maor, Gil; Biron‐Shental, Tal; Haran, Gabi; Ganor-Paz, Yael; Fejgin, Moshe D.

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.324

Cited by 5 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The included studies were conducted in the following countries: Australia (Henry 2013; Pennell 2009), Brazil (Filho 2002; Oliveira 2010, Canada (Lemyre 2006; Pineda Rivas 2016; St Onge 1995), Czech Republic (Roztocil 1998), China (Wang 2012; Wang 2014; Wu 2017; Yuen 1996), Denmark (Lokkegaard 2015; Lyndrup 1989; Lyndrup 1994), Egypt (Ahmed 2016; El Khouly 2017; Kandil 2012), Finland (Kruit 2016), France (Allouche 1993; Sarreau 2016;), India (Chavakula 2015; Dalui 2005; Deo 2012; Deshmukh 2011; Goonewardene 2014; Gunawardena 2012; Joshi 2016; Kuppulakshmi 2016; Laddad 2013; Lanka 2014; Meetei 2015; Mundle 2017; Sheikher 2009), Iran (Moini 2003; Niromanesh 2003; Roudsari 2011; Sharami 2005) Italy (Cromi 2011; Cromi 2012), Israel (Atad 1996; Barda 2018; Ophir 1992; Shechter‐Maor 2015; Salim 2011; Solt 2009), Jordan (Al‐Taani 2004; Khamaiseh 2012), the Netherlands (Jozwiak 2012; Jozwiak 2013; Jozwiak 2014; ten Eikelder 2016), Nigeria (Aduloju 2016; Garba 2016; Orhue 1995; Tabowei 2003), Norway (Haugland 2012), Pakistan (Husain 2017;…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the remaining studies, no study period was reported (Atad 1996; Bagratee 1990; Benzineb 1996; Casey 1995; Chua 1997; Dalui 2005; Deo 2012; Gelisen 2005; Gilson 2017; Glagoleva 1999; Gunawardena 2012; Hay 1995; Hudon 1999; Jagani 1982; Jeeva 1982; Johnson 1985; Lanka 2014; Lanka 2014; Lewis 1983; Lyndrup 1989; Ntsaluba 1997; Ophir 1992; Pineda Rivas 2016; Ridgway 1991; Roberts 1986; Rouben 1993; Solt 2009; Shechter‐Maor 2015; Sheikher 2009; Tan 2015; Wang 2012; Yuen 1996).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies included women with a specific indication for labour induction or specific patient groups, i.e. women with a hypertensive disease (Mundle 2017), women with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 (Pineda Rivas 2016), post‐date pregnancies (Gelisen 2005; Goonewardene 2014; Gunawardena 2012; Kandil 2012; Somirathne 2017), oligohydramnios (Shechter‐Maor 2015; Wang 2014) or pre labour rupture of membranes (PROM; Amorosa 2017; Kruit 2016; Mackeen 2018; Tita 2006). Most authors specified that only women with intact membranes were included, except for Prager 2008, in which this was not an exclusion criteria.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

101

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low‐dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.Search methodsFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, , the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.Selection criteriaClinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra‐amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra‐amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very‐low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low‐quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate‐quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

101

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 The study sample selected for studies Wang and Shechter et al included only patients with oligohydramnios with an AFI less than or equal to 5 cm while other studies did not. 20,23 The indications for induction of labor were similar and most of the studies included women with a singleton pregnancy, vertex presentation and with intact membranes. Women with contraindications for vaginal delivery, preeclampsia, placenta previa, premature rupture of membranes and abnormal fetal heart rate tracing were excluded in most studies.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies by Shechter et al, Lokkegaard et al and Beckmann M et al were removed as these three studies did not report on this outcome. 23,24,27 The subgroups were dinoprostone preparation( vaginal gel, vaginal insert, vaginal tablet), dinoprostone dosage (3mg, 10mg), sample size (<500,>500) and volume of double-balloon catheter were ( 50ml, 80ml). The vaginal tablet was reported only in Lokkegaard et al study and no results were obtained as this study was not included.…”

Section: Subgroup Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of prostaglandins vs double balloon catheter in inducing labor: a meta-analysis

Chong

Chew

Fernando

et al. 2020

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of double‐balloon catheter with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in induction of labor.Methods: We searched electronic sources from Medline, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct and Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews. Only randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the PGE2 agents with double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction in women with unfavorable cervix were included in the analysis. The main outcomes included vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours and cesarean delivery rates. We calculated relative risks and mean differences using fixed effects and random‐effects models.Results: Prostaglandin was more favourable for vaginal delivery within 24 hours compared to double balloon catheter, but was not statistically significant (RR 1.17: 95% CI 0.96-1.42 p =0.12). The induction to delivery time yielded a non-significant result that again favors prostaglandin (SMD 0.02 CI:0.18,0.22, p = 0.86). There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rates between the two groups (RR 1.02: 95% CI 0.92-1.14, p = 0.68). Uterine hyperstimulation and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) admissions were significantly higher with prostaglandin. (RR 0.09: CI 0.04, 0.22 p<0.00001 and RR 0.75 CI: 0.62,0.90 p=003).Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the success of induction of labour between use of PGE2 and double balloon catheter. Uterine hyperstimulation and NICU admissions were significantly higher in Prostaglandin group.

show abstract