982
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Pre-induction cervical ripening and hygroscopic cervical dilators in pre-labor induction

, , , , , , , , , & show all
Article: 2239422 | Received 26 Apr 2023, Accepted 17 Jul 2023, Published online: 13 Aug 2023

References

  • Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.
  • Ministry of Health, Certificate of Assistance in Childbirth (CeDAP): Analysis of the birth event-Year 2021. Available from: https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_3076_allegato.pdf
  • Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–268.
  • Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. National vital statistics reports births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Statisctics Rep. 2019;68(13):1–47.
  • Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3(3):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2.
  • Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs foley baloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(3):275.e1–9–275.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.008.
  • Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of outpatient compared with inpatient cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 (OPRA study). BJOG. 2015;122(1):94–104. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12846.
  • Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A comparison of inpa- tient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:126. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0550-z.
  • Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:25.
  • Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander VM, et al. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. J Perinatol. 2016;36(8):618–622. doi: 10.1038/jp.2016.62.
  • Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, et al. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:751–756.
  • Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, et al. Outpatient ver sus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.026.
  • Ausbeck EB, Jauk VC, Xue Y, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(3):597–606. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004041.
  • Haavisto H, Polo-Kantola P, Anttila E, et al. Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter - a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(3):410–417. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14037.
  • Kuper SG, Jauk VC, George DM, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter for induction of labor in parous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(1):94–101. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002678.
  • Saad AF, Gavara R, Senguttuvan RN, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient preinduction cervical resections with a synthetic osmotic dilator: a randomised clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140(4):584–590. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004942.
  • Royal of obstetricians & gynecologists’ (RCOG) guidelines. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline N°45. 2015. Available from https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/kpkjwd5h/gtg_45.pdf
  • Saunders SJ, Saunders R, Wong T, et al. Out-of-hospital cervical ripening with a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator may reduce hospital costs and cesarean sections in the United States-a cost-consequence analysis. Front Public Health. 2021; 9:689115. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.689115.