Dinoprostone Versus Double Balloon Catheter for Cervical Ripening in Patients with Isolated Oligohydramnios
AbstractObjective: To compare the labor characteristics and neonatal outcome of dinoprostone vaginal insert and double balloon catheter in pregnancies with isolated oligohydramnios at term. Methods: All pregnant women with isolated oligohydramnios and immature cervix at term that underwent labor induction with either the dinoprostone vaginal insert or double balloon catheter between 08 September 2016 and 08 September 2017 at a tertiary centre were included in the study. Data regarding the characteristics of parturition, including the period of time from insertion of the ripening agent to vaginal delivery, caesarean section rate, distribution of caesarean indications, need for augmentation, change in haemoglobin, new-born birth weight, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, 5-minute Apgar score and neonatal intensive care unit admission, were extracted from medical records. Results: The cesarean section rates were 29% versus 48.8% in the dinoprostone and balloon catheter groups, respectively (p = 0.03). The other intrapartum, postpartum characteristics and neonatal outcome were comparable between groups. Conclusion: Dinoprostone vaginal insert is a more efficient way of cervical ripening compared to the double balloon catheter in patients with isolated oligohydramnios. Both agents are comparable for neonatal outcome.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum fetal surveillance. Practice Bulletin No. 145. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:182–92.
Baron C, Morgan MA, Garite TJ. The impact of amniotic fluid volume assessed intrapartum on perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173(1):167-74.
Hill LM, Breckle R, Wolfgram KR, et al. Oligohydramnios: ultrasonically detected incidence and subsequent fetal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983;147(4):407-10.
Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266-8.
Chauhan SP, Sanderson M, Hendrix NW, et al. Perinatal outcome and amniotic fluid index in the antepartum and intrapartum periods: A meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(6):1473-8.
Phelan JP, Ahn MO, Smith CV, et al. Amniotic fluid index measurements during pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1987;32(8):601-4.
Harman CR. Amniotic fluid abnormalities. Semin Perinatol 2008;32(4):288-94.
Moore TR, Cayle JE. The amniotic fluid index in normal human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162(5):1168-73.
Peipert JF, Donnenfeld AE. Oligohydramnios: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1991;46(6):325-39.
Nabhan AF, Abdelmoula YA. Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket as a screening test for preventing adverse pregnancy outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(3):CD006593.
Novikova N, Hofmeyr GJ, Essilfie-Appiah G. Prophylactic versus therapeutic amnioinfusion for oligohydramnios in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(9):CD000176.
Rossi AC, Prefumo F. Perinatal outcomes of isolated oligohydramnios at term and post-term pregnancy: a systematic review of literature with meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;169(2):149-54.
Rabie N, Magann E, Steelman S, et al. Oligohydramnios in complicated and uncomplicated pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;49(4):442-449.
Shechter-Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh-Mestechkin D, et al. Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol 2015;35(2):95-8.
Wang W, Zheng J, Fu J, et al. Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;27(17):1805-8.
Du C, Liu Y, Liu Y, et al. Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;291(6):1221-7.
Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, et al. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(2):177-8.
Copyright (c) 2020 Gazi Medical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All opinions and reports within the articles that are published in the Gazi Medical Journal are the personal opinions of author(s). Gazi University, Editors and the publisher do not accept any responsibility for these articles. The journal is printed on acid-free paper.