Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in Nulliparas with unripe cervix: a randomized controlled trial

被引:17
作者
Chia, Hang Min [1 ]
Tan, Peng Chiong [1 ]
Tan, Sze Ping [2 ]
Hamdan, Mukhri [1 ]
Omar, Siti Zawiah [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Malaya, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
[2] Kings Coll London, London WC2R 2LS, England
关键词
Induction of labor; Foley catheter; Nulliparas; Speculum; BALLOON;
D O I
10.1186/s12884-020-03029-0
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BackgroundInduction of labor (IoL) is an increasingly common obstetric procedure. Foley catheter IoL is recommended by WHO. It is associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and similar duration to delivery and vaginal delivery rate compared to other methods. Insertion is typically via speculum but digital insertion has been reported to be faster, better tolerated and with similar universal insertion success compared to speculum insertion in a mixed population of nulliparas and multiparas. Transcervical procedure is more challenging in nulliparas and when the cervix is unripe. We evaluated the ease and tolerability of digital compared to speculum insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervixes.MethodsA randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score <= 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion.ResultsData from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.721.85 vs. 2.250.55min p=0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p=0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p=0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 +/- 9.4 vs 29.6 +/- 11.5h p=0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p=0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p=0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.Conclusion p id=Par Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards.Trial registration p id=Par This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2016, HOSP MAT ACT 2015 16
  • [2] A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour
    Chen, W.
    Xue, J.
    Peprah, M. K.
    Wen, S. W.
    Walker, M.
    Gao, Y.
    Tang, Y.
    [J]. BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2016, 123 (03) : 346 - 354
  • [3] Labor Induction With a Foley Balloon Inflated to 30 mL Compared With 60 mL A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Delaney, Shani
    Shaffer, Brian L.
    Cheng, Yvonne W.
    Vargas, Juan
    Sparks, Teresa N.
    Paul, Kathleen
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 115 (06) : 1239 - 1245
  • [4] Foley catheter placement for induction of labor with or without stylette: a randomized clinical trial
    Forgie, Marie M.
    Greer, Danielle M.
    Kram, Jessica J. F.
    Vander Wyst, Kiley B.
    Salvo, Nicole P.
    Siddiqui, Danish S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 214 (03)
  • [5] Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial
    Fruhman, Gary
    Gavard, Jeffrey A.
    Amon, Erol
    Flick, Kathleen V. G.
    Miller, Collin
    Gross, Gilad A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 216 (01) : 67.e1 - 67.e9
  • [6] Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women
    Grobman, William A.
    Rice, Madeline M.
    Reddy, Uma M.
    Tita, Alan T. N.
    Silver, Robert M.
    Mallett, Gail
    Hill, Kim
    Thom, Elizabeth A.
    El-Sayed, Yasser Y.
    Perez-Delboy, Annette
    Rouse, Dwight J.
    Saade, George R.
    Boggess, Kim A.
    Chauhan, Suneet P.
    Iams, Jay D.
    Chien, Edward K.
    Casey, Brian M.
    Gibbs, Ronald S.
    Srinivas, Sindhu K.
    Swamy, Geeta K.
    Simhan, Hyagriv N.
    Macones, George A.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2018, 379 (06) : 513 - 523
  • [7] Hozo SP., 2005, BMC MED RES METHODOL, V5, P13, DOI DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13
  • [8] Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor
    Jonsson, Maria
    Hellgren, Charlotte
    Wiberg-Itzel, Eva
    Akerud, Helena
    [J]. ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2011, 90 (09) : 997 - 1004
  • [9] Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort
    Laughon, S. Katherine
    Zhang, Jun
    Grewal, Jagteshwar
    Sundaram, Rajeshwari
    Beaver, Julie
    Reddy, Uma M.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 206 (06) : 486.e1 - 486.e9
  • [10] Foley catheter silicone versus latex for term outpatient induction of labour: A randomised trial
    McGee, Therese M.
    Gidaszewski, Beata
    Khajehei, Marjan
    Tse, Toni
    Gibbs, Emma
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2019, 59 (02) : 235 - 242