Double Foley catheter for labor induction: An alternative method.

Mehmet Obut, Deniz Balsak, Kemal Sarsmaz, Harun E Tolunay, Erol N Varlı, Dilek Şahin, Aykan Yücel
{"title":"Double Foley catheter for labor induction: An alternative method.","authors":"Mehmet Obut,&nbsp;Deniz Balsak,&nbsp;Kemal Sarsmaz,&nbsp;Harun E Tolunay,&nbsp;Erol N Varlı,&nbsp;Dilek Şahin,&nbsp;Aykan Yücel","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.13807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To introduce a new handmade device, the double Foley catheter (DFC), and compare it with the Foley catheter (FC) and Cook cervical ripening balloon for its effectiveness in labor induction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective randomized controlled trial included 222 patients with unfavorable cervices. The patients were randomly allocated to the DFC, FC, and Cook cervical ripening balloon groups (n = 74 patients per group). The outcomes were evaluated using SPSS v. 23.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bishop scores successfully increased with all three methods (P = 0.000 for all groups), and the rates of vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h were similar (P = 0.101 and P = 0.390, respectively). The pain scores of the DFC and Cook cervical ripening balloon groups were similar, but were lower than those of the FC group (P = 0.011). The overall maternal satisfaction scores of the DFC and Cook cervical ripening balloon groups were not significantly different but were higher than those of the FC group (P = 0.014).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The maternal safety and success rate of labor induction were comparable between groups. However, the FC group had a higher pain score during catheter insertion and a lower maternal satisfaction rate. Moreover, considering the high cost of the Cook cervical ripening balloon, the DFC has an advantage, especially in low-resource countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":517240,"journal":{"name":"International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":"496-504"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ijgo.13807","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective: To introduce a new handmade device, the double Foley catheter (DFC), and compare it with the Foley catheter (FC) and Cook cervical ripening balloon for its effectiveness in labor induction.

Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 222 patients with unfavorable cervices. The patients were randomly allocated to the DFC, FC, and Cook cervical ripening balloon groups (n = 74 patients per group). The outcomes were evaluated using SPSS v. 23.

Results: Bishop scores successfully increased with all three methods (P = 0.000 for all groups), and the rates of vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h were similar (P = 0.101 and P = 0.390, respectively). The pain scores of the DFC and Cook cervical ripening balloon groups were similar, but were lower than those of the FC group (P = 0.011). The overall maternal satisfaction scores of the DFC and Cook cervical ripening balloon groups were not significantly different but were higher than those of the FC group (P = 0.014).

Conclusion: The maternal safety and success rate of labor induction were comparable between groups. However, the FC group had a higher pain score during catheter insertion and a lower maternal satisfaction rate. Moreover, considering the high cost of the Cook cervical ripening balloon, the DFC has an advantage, especially in low-resource countries.

双Foley导尿管引产:另一种方法。
目的:介绍一种新型手工装置双Foley导尿管(DFC),并与Foley导尿管(FC)和Cook宫颈成熟球囊在引产中的效果进行比较。方法:本前瞻性随机对照试验纳入222例不良手术患者。将患者随机分为DFC、FC和Cook宫颈成熟球囊组(每组74例)。使用SPSS v. 23对结果进行评估。结果:三种方法的Bishop评分均成功提高(P = 0.000), 24 h和48 h阴道分娩率相似(P = 0.101和P = 0.390)。DFC组和Cook组疼痛评分相似,但低于FC组(P = 0.011)。DFC组和Cook组产妇总体满意度得分均高于FC组,差异无统计学意义(P = 0.014)。结论:两组间产妇引产安全性和成功率具有可比性。但FC组置管时疼痛评分较高,产妇满意度较低。此外,考虑到库克宫颈成熟球囊的高成本,DFC具有优势,特别是在资源匮乏的国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书