SHOULD LABOUR BE INDUCED USING A NON-PHARMACOLOGIC APPROACH?
Main Article Content
Keywords
Labor, Induction of labour, prostaglandins, Foley catheter
Abstract
The newer pharmacological approach for ripening the cervix for induction of labour is compared to the older method of inserting a catheter into the cervix. The comparison suggests that both approaches are acceptable but one or the other may be preferable in certain clinical situations.
References
1. Sanchez-Ramos L, Hsieh E. Pharmacologic Methods for cervical ripening and labor induction. Curr Women’s Health Rep 2003;3:55-60.
2. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, Hewson S, Milner R, Willan A, and the Canadian Multicenter Post-Term Pregnancy Trial Group. Induction of labour as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1587-92.
3. Crane J. Induction of Labour at Term. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline 2001; 107:1-12.
4. Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25:23.
5. Atad J. Hallak M. Ben-David Y. Auslender R. Abramovici H. Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases. BJOG 1997 Jan;104(1):29-32.
6. Sciscione AC, McCullough H, Manley JS, Shlossman PA, Pollock M, Colmorgen GHC. A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Foley Catheter Insertion versus Intracervical Prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction Cervical Ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180:55-9.
7. St Onge RD, Connors GT. Preinduction Cervical Ripening: A Comparison of Intracervical Prostaglandin E2 gel versus the Foley Catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172:687-90.
8. Niromanesh S, Mosavi-Jarrahi A, Samkhaniani F. Intracervical Foley Catheter Balloon vs. Prostaglandin in Preinduction Cervical Ripening. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2003; 81:23-7.
9. Orhue A. Induction of labour at term in primigravidae with low Bishop’s score: a comparison of three methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 58(2):119-25.
10. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods induction of labour (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
11. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of Uterine Rupture During Labor Among Women with a Prior Cesearean Delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:3-7.
12. Zuberi NF. Increased risk of cervical canal infections with intracervical Foley catheter. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2003; 13:146-9
2. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, Hewson S, Milner R, Willan A, and the Canadian Multicenter Post-Term Pregnancy Trial Group. Induction of labour as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1587-92.
3. Crane J. Induction of Labour at Term. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline 2001; 107:1-12.
4. Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25:23.
5. Atad J. Hallak M. Ben-David Y. Auslender R. Abramovici H. Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases. BJOG 1997 Jan;104(1):29-32.
6. Sciscione AC, McCullough H, Manley JS, Shlossman PA, Pollock M, Colmorgen GHC. A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Foley Catheter Insertion versus Intracervical Prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction Cervical Ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180:55-9.
7. St Onge RD, Connors GT. Preinduction Cervical Ripening: A Comparison of Intracervical Prostaglandin E2 gel versus the Foley Catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172:687-90.
8. Niromanesh S, Mosavi-Jarrahi A, Samkhaniani F. Intracervical Foley Catheter Balloon vs. Prostaglandin in Preinduction Cervical Ripening. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2003; 81:23-7.
9. Orhue A. Induction of labour at term in primigravidae with low Bishop’s score: a comparison of three methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 58(2):119-25.
10. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods induction of labour (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
11. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of Uterine Rupture During Labor Among Women with a Prior Cesearean Delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:3-7.
12. Zuberi NF. Increased risk of cervical canal infections with intracervical Foley catheter. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2003; 13:146-9
Article Sidebar
Published
Dec 8, 2018
Article Details
How to Cite
Merovitz, L., Whittle, W., & Farine, D. (2018). SHOULD LABOUR BE INDUCED USING A NON-PHARMACOLOGIC APPROACH?. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 12(1). https://mail.jptcp.com/index.php/jptcp/article/view/89
Issue
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Merovitz, L., Whittle, W., & Farine, D. (2018). SHOULD LABOUR BE INDUCED USING A NON-PHARMACOLOGIC APPROACH?. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 12(1). https://mail.jptcp.com/index.php/jptcp/article/view/89