THE COMPARISON OF CERVICAL RIPENING DOUBLE BALLOON AND HIGROSCOPIC DILATOR (DILAPAN–S®) IN LABOR INDUCTION Doğum İndüksiyonunda Servikal Olgunlaştırıcı Çift Balon ile Higroskopik Dilatörün (Dilapan – S®) Karşılaştırılması
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cervical ripening double balloon and hygroscopic dilator
in labor induction.
Material and Methods: This is a retrospective single-center study conducted in a tertiary center. Pregnant
women at or after 37 weeks with induction indication were included in this study. A total of 113 patients
were included in the study. Pregnant women were divided into two groups as balloon and dilator. The two
groups were compared in terms of obtetric outcomes such as bishop score change, oxytocin requirement,
vaginal delivery rate, delivery time, apgar score and patient comfort.
Results: There was no difference between the groups in terms of age, body mass index, gestational week
and parity. Vaginal birth rates in Dilapan-S® and balloon catheter groups were 51% and 54.2%, respectively.
The total duration of the labor was longer in the dilator group but the third stage was shorter. Patient comfort
was significantly higher in the Dilapan group.
Conclusion: Hygroscopic dilator and cervical ripening double balloon methods have similar results in terms
of efficacy and safety and are equally effective in induction of labor.
Keywords: Balloon; Birth; Dilapan; Dilator; Hygroscopic Induction
ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı doğum indüksiyonunda Servikal olgunlaştırıcı çift balon ile higroskopik dilatörün
karşılaştırılmasıdır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma tersiyer merkezde yapılan retrospektif tek merkezli bir çalışmadır. 37 hafta
ve sonrasında olan ve indüksiyon endikasyonu olan gebeler bu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmaya toplam
113 hasta alındı. Gebeler balon grubu ve dilator grubu olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. İki grup bishop skor
değişikliği, oksitosin gereksinimi, vajinal doğum oranı, doğum zamanı, apgar skoru ve hasta konforu gibi
obstetrik sonuçlar açısından karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Gruplar arasında yaş, vücut kitle indeksi, gebelik haftası ve parite açısından fark yoktu. Dilapan-S®
ve balon kateter gruplarında vajinal doğum oranları sırasıyla %51 ve %54,2 idi. Doğumun toplam süresi
dilatör grubunda daha uzundu ancak üçüncü aşama daha kısaydı. Dilapan grubunda hasta konforu anlamlı
derecede yüksekti.
Sonuç: Doğum indüksiyonu kararı verilen hastalarda higroskopik dilatör ve servikal olgunlaştırıcı çift balon
yöntemleri etkinlik ve güvenlik açısından benzer sonuçlara sahiptir ve eşit derecede etkilidir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Balon; Dilapan; Doğum; Higroskopik Dilatör; İndüksiyon
Keywords
THE COMPARISON OF CERVICAL RIPENING DOUBLE BALLOON AND HIGROSCOPIC DILATOR (DILAPAN–S®) IN LABOR INDUCTION
References
- 1. World Health Organization (WHO), editor. Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth: a guide for midwives and doctors.Geneva: WHO; 2017. 492 p.
- 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s mothers and babies 2014 – in brief. Canberra: AIHW, 2016. 80 p.
- 3. Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M, Driscoll AK, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2017;66(1):1.
- 4. Speert H. Obstetrics and gynecology in America: a history. Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1980. 264 p.
- 5. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266-8.
- 6. Calder AA, Embrey MP, Hillier K. Extra-amniotic prostaglandin E2 for the induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1974;81(1):39-46.
- 7. Calder AA, Embrey MP. The management of labour: In Beard R, Brudenell M, Dunn P, Fairweather D, editors. Proceedings of thir study group of RCOG. London: RCOG; 1975. p. 62-9;
- 8. Grobman WA, Bailit J, Lai Y, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Varner MW, et al. Defining failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(1):122.e1-122.e8.
- 9. Winer N. Different methods for the induction of labour in postterm pregnancy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011;40(8):796-811.
- 10. Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, Perni UC, Romero VC, King VJ, et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:84.
Abstract
References
- 1. World Health Organization (WHO), editor. Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth: a guide for midwives and doctors.Geneva: WHO; 2017. 492 p.
- 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s mothers and babies 2014 – in brief. Canberra: AIHW, 2016. 80 p.
- 3. Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M, Driscoll AK, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2017;66(1):1.
- 4. Speert H. Obstetrics and gynecology in America: a history. Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1980. 264 p.
- 5. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266-8.
- 6. Calder AA, Embrey MP, Hillier K. Extra-amniotic prostaglandin E2 for the induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1974;81(1):39-46.
- 7. Calder AA, Embrey MP. The management of labour: In Beard R, Brudenell M, Dunn P, Fairweather D, editors. Proceedings of thir study group of RCOG. London: RCOG; 1975. p. 62-9;
- 8. Grobman WA, Bailit J, Lai Y, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Varner MW, et al. Defining failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(1):122.e1-122.e8.
- 9. Winer N. Different methods for the induction of labour in postterm pregnancy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2011;40(8):796-811.
- 10. Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, Perni UC, Romero VC, King VJ, et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:84.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 15, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2020 Volume: 10 Issue: 4 |
