Comparison of Dinoprostine and Intracervical Foley Catheter Balloon for Cervical Ripening
ACOG ePoster. McCool R. 04/30/21; 321192; 995653
Dr. Randy McCool
Dr. Randy McCool
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You may also access this content "anytime, anywhere" with the Free MULTILEARNING App for iOS and Android
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare mode of delivery and obstetric and neonatal outcomes between dinoprostone and Foley catheter bulb as two methods used for cervical ripening for induction of labor.

Methods: In-patient medical records between January 1, 2019 and August 30, 2019 were searched to identify those patients who presented for cervical ripening and subsequent induction of labor via either dinoprostone or FCB insertion. Relevant maternal and neonatal data, including mode of delivery, were ascertained.

Results: Inclusion criteria was met for 173 patients. Of these, 103 patients underwent pharmacologic cervical ripening by dinoprostone and 70 patients received mechanical cervical ripening by FCB method. Mode of delivery (vaginal versus C-section) was not statistically significant between the two groups (p= 0.492 and 0.489, respectively). Time to delivery was statistically significant (p = 0.001) between the two groups (22.3 hours in the dinoprostone group and 17.3 hours in the FCB group). Maternal length of stay was also statistically significant (p = 0.0132) between the two groups (3.4 days in the dinoprostone group and 3.1 days in the FCB group).

Conclusion/Implications: Our data supports the use of either pharmacologic (dinoprostone) or mechanical (FCB) methods for cervical ripening when induction of labor is desired in the clinical setting of an unfavorable cervix.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare mode of delivery and obstetric and neonatal outcomes between dinoprostone and Foley catheter bulb as two methods used for cervical ripening for induction of labor.

Methods: In-patient medical records between January 1, 2019 and August 30, 2019 were searched to identify those patients who presented for cervical ripening and subsequent induction of labor via either dinoprostone or FCB insertion. Relevant maternal and neonatal data, including mode of delivery, were ascertained.

Results: Inclusion criteria was met for 173 patients. Of these, 103 patients underwent pharmacologic cervical ripening by dinoprostone and 70 patients received mechanical cervical ripening by FCB method. Mode of delivery (vaginal versus C-section) was not statistically significant between the two groups (p= 0.492 and 0.489, respectively). Time to delivery was statistically significant (p = 0.001) between the two groups (22.3 hours in the dinoprostone group and 17.3 hours in the FCB group). Maternal length of stay was also statistically significant (p = 0.0132) between the two groups (3.4 days in the dinoprostone group and 3.1 days in the FCB group).

Conclusion/Implications: Our data supports the use of either pharmacologic (dinoprostone) or mechanical (FCB) methods for cervical ripening when induction of labor is desired in the clinical setting of an unfavorable cervix.

Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies