膜清扫与经宫颈Foley导尿管在既往剖宫产妇女中的引产:一项随机对照试验。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Soon L Yong, Joyce C Ting, Xiu S Wong, George H Wong, Marcus Kang
{"title":"膜清扫与经宫颈Foley导尿管在既往剖宫产妇女中的引产:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Soon L Yong, Joyce C Ting, Xiu S Wong, George H Wong, Marcus Kang","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.24.05470-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of membrane sweeping and transcervical Foley catheters for the induction of labor after one previous cesarean delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was performed at Sibu Hospital, Sarawak, Malaysia between 15<sup>th</sup> February 2018 and 30<sup>th</sup> August 2018. Pregnant women aged 18 or above at term who had one previous uncomplicated lower segment cesarean section and required induction of labor were randomized to membrane sweeping or transcervical Foley catheter insertion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 60 women were recruited in the study, of whom 30 were randomized to the membrane sweeping group and 30 to the Foley catheter group. The number of women who achieved a Bishop Score ≥8 was significantly higher in the Foley catheter arm than in the membrane sweeping arm (76.7% versus 43.3%; P=0.008). Compared with membrane sweeping, transcervical Foley catheter insertion significantly improved Bishop scores and allowed more women to achieve a favorable cervix that permitted an amniotomy by 48 hours of labor induction (P<0.05). The mode of delivery, intrapartum oxytocin use, maternal complications and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. No women had a uterine rupture or uterine hyperstimulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although transcervical Foley catheter insertion is superior to membrane sweeping in terms of the efficacy of labor induction, both methods did not show a statistically significant difference in vaginal delivery rates and their overall complication rates were similar.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Membrane sweeping versus transcervical Foley catheter for induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Soon L Yong, Joyce C Ting, Xiu S Wong, George H Wong, Marcus Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-606X.24.05470-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of membrane sweeping and transcervical Foley catheters for the induction of labor after one previous cesarean delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was performed at Sibu Hospital, Sarawak, Malaysia between 15<sup>th</sup> February 2018 and 30<sup>th</sup> August 2018. Pregnant women aged 18 or above at term who had one previous uncomplicated lower segment cesarean section and required induction of labor were randomized to membrane sweeping or transcervical Foley catheter insertion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 60 women were recruited in the study, of whom 30 were randomized to the membrane sweeping group and 30 to the Foley catheter group. The number of women who achieved a Bishop Score ≥8 was significantly higher in the Foley catheter arm than in the membrane sweeping arm (76.7% versus 43.3%; P=0.008). Compared with membrane sweeping, transcervical Foley catheter insertion significantly improved Bishop scores and allowed more women to achieve a favorable cervix that permitted an amniotomy by 48 hours of labor induction (P<0.05). The mode of delivery, intrapartum oxytocin use, maternal complications and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. No women had a uterine rupture or uterine hyperstimulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although transcervical Foley catheter insertion is superior to membrane sweeping in terms of the efficacy of labor induction, both methods did not show a statistically significant difference in vaginal delivery rates and their overall complication rates were similar.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.24.05470-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.24.05470-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较一次剖宫产后膜清扫和经宫颈Foley导尿管引产的效果。方法:于2018年2月15日至2018年8月30日在马来西亚沙捞越的泗巫医院进行了一项开放标签、前瞻性、随机对照试验。18岁或以上的足月孕妇,既往有过一次无并发症的下段剖宫产手术并需要引产,随机分为膜清扫组或经宫颈Foley导尿管置入组。结果:共招募了60名女性,其中30名随机分为扫膜组,30名随机分为Foley导尿管组。在Foley导尿管组中Bishop评分≥8的女性人数明显高于扫膜组(76.7% vs 43.3%;P = 0.008)。与膜清扫相比,经宫颈Foley导管置入可显著提高Bishop评分,并使更多妇女在引产48小时内获得有利的子宫颈,从而可以进行羊膜切开术(p结论:虽然经宫颈Foley导尿管置入在引产效果上优于扫膜,但两种方法的阴道分娩率差异无统计学意义,两种方法的总并发症发生率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Membrane sweeping versus transcervical Foley catheter for induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

Background: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of membrane sweeping and transcervical Foley catheters for the induction of labor after one previous cesarean delivery.

Methods: An open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was performed at Sibu Hospital, Sarawak, Malaysia between 15th February 2018 and 30th August 2018. Pregnant women aged 18 or above at term who had one previous uncomplicated lower segment cesarean section and required induction of labor were randomized to membrane sweeping or transcervical Foley catheter insertion.

Results: A total of 60 women were recruited in the study, of whom 30 were randomized to the membrane sweeping group and 30 to the Foley catheter group. The number of women who achieved a Bishop Score ≥8 was significantly higher in the Foley catheter arm than in the membrane sweeping arm (76.7% versus 43.3%; P=0.008). Compared with membrane sweeping, transcervical Foley catheter insertion significantly improved Bishop scores and allowed more women to achieve a favorable cervix that permitted an amniotomy by 48 hours of labor induction (P<0.05). The mode of delivery, intrapartum oxytocin use, maternal complications and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. No women had a uterine rupture or uterine hyperstimulation.

Conclusions: Although transcervical Foley catheter insertion is superior to membrane sweeping in terms of the efficacy of labor induction, both methods did not show a statistically significant difference in vaginal delivery rates and their overall complication rates were similar.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信