Transcervical Foley’s catheter versus Cook balloon for cervical ripening in stillbirth with a scarred uterus: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Foley's catheter and Cook cervical ripening balloon are comparable regarding efficacy and safety profile when used to ripen the cervix in pregnant women with stillbirth, unfavorable cervix and scarred uterus. However, Foley's catheter has a shorter induction to delivery interval and is relatively cheaper device.

Double- versus single-balloon catheters for labour induction and cervical ripening: a meta-analysis

“…For those studies that included only a second Bishop score, we included these data and conducted sensitivity analysesD: Hoppe 2015 [17] reported only vaginal deliveries but did not define whether assisted vaginal deliveries were included; we treated these data as though it did not include assisted vaginal deliveriesE: Salim 2011 [20] reported no events on this outcome for either arm, which was inestimableF: All measured by VASI: When we eliminated Salim 2011 [20], the MD pooled effect changed to 2.16 [0.76, 3.57] ( p -value, 0.003), in favour of the single-balloon catheter. The results remained comparable after all other sensitivity analyses were performedII: Excluding Rab 2014 [19], though heterogeneity disappeared, the effect remained comparable (Q p -value, 0.17; I 2 , 38%; p -value, 0.58). Excluding Salim 2011 [20], the result was shown in superscript note IIII: Significant heterogeneity existed regardless of which study we excluded; however, when we repeated the analysis after excluding Salim 2011 [20], the result changed (MD, 2.40 [0.32, 4.48]; supporting the single-balloon catheter)IV: Stable effect but became homogeneous only when we excluded Hoppe 2015 [17]V: Stable effect but became homogeneous only when we excluded Rab 2014 [19] or Salim, 2011 [20]…”

“…The results remained comparable after all other sensitivity analyses were performedII: Excluding Rab 2014 [19], though heterogeneity disappeared, the effect remained comparable (Q p -value, 0.17; I 2 , 38%; p -value, 0.58). Excluding Salim 2011 [20], the result was shown in superscript note IIII: Significant heterogeneity existed regardless of which study we excluded; however, when we repeated the analysis after excluding Salim 2011 [20], the result changed (MD, 2.40 [0.32, 4.48]; supporting the single-balloon catheter)IV: Stable effect but became homogeneous only when we excluded Hoppe 2015 [17]V: Stable effect but became homogeneous only when we excluded Rab 2014 [19] or Salim, 2011 [20]…”

“…*: Only those variables contained in more than one study are displayed in this analysis tableOnly Hoppe 2015 [17] described oligohydramnios and abnormal foetal monitoring and did not reveal significant differencesRab 2014 [19] mentioned data on body mass index (BMI) at insertion, while Salim, 2011 [20] reported BMI data before pregnancyNot all of the baseline data was described in Haugland, 2012 [16] and Solt, 2009 [21]A: Pennell 2009 [18] described the maternal age and gestational weeks by median and typical range. The results remained the same after sensitivity analysisB: Pennell 2009 [18] described the Bishop score using ordinal data, making synthesis impossibleC: Postdates, as one of the induction indications, shows heterogeneity between the two studies [17, 18]x: The odds ratio (OR) was the pooled effect for dichotomous variables.…”

“…Rab 2014 [19] mentioned data on body mass index (BMI) at insertion, while Salim, 2011 [20] reported BMI data before pregnancy…”

“…II: Excluding Rab 2014 [19], though heterogeneity disappeared, the effect remained comparable (Q p -value, 0.17; I 2 , 38%; p -value, 0.58). Excluding Salim 2011 [20], the result was shown in superscript note I…”