Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in Nulliparas with unripe cervix: a randomized controlled trial

Hang Min Chia, Peng Chiong Tan, Sze Ping Tan, Mukhri Hamdan, Siti Zawiah Omar, Hang Min Chia, Peng Chiong Tan, Sze Ping Tan, Mukhri Hamdan, Siti Zawiah Omar

Abstract

Background: Induction of labor (IoL) is an increasingly common obstetric procedure. Foley catheter IoL is recommended by WHO. It is associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and similar duration to delivery and vaginal delivery rate compared to other methods. Insertion is typically via speculum but digital insertion has been reported to be faster, better tolerated and with similar universal insertion success compared to speculum insertion in a mixed population of nulliparas and multiparas. Transcervical procedure is more challenging in nulliparas and when the cervix is unripe. We evaluated the ease and tolerability of digital compared to speculum insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervixes.

Methods: A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score ≤ 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion.

Results: Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72 ± 1.85 vs. 2.25 ± 0.55 min p = 0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p = 0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p = 0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 ± 9.4 vs 29.6 ± 11.5 h p = 0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p = 0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p = 0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.

Conclusion: Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards.

Trial registration: This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.

Keywords: Foley catheter; Induction of labor; Nulliparas; Speculum.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Recruitment flow chart of a randomized trial of speculum assisted compared to digital insertion of the Foley catheter for labor induction in nulliparas

References

    1. Statistics NM . Hospital maternity activity, 2015–16. UK: NHS Digital, Government Statistical Service; 2016.
    1. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, Hill K, Thom EA, El-Sayed YY, Perez-Delboy A, et al. Labor induction versus expectant Management in low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.
    1. Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, Wen SW, Walker M, Gao Y, Tang Y. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016;123(3):346–354. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456.
    1. Organization WH . WHO recommendations for Induction of labour. 2011.
    1. Yang F, Huang S, Long Y, Huang L. Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44(1):27–34. doi: 10.1111/jog.13551.
    1. Jonsson M, Hellgren C, Wiberg-Itzel E, Akerud H. Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(9):997–1004. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01197.x.
    1. Vallikkannu N, Lam WK, Omar SZ, Tan PC. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1, bishop score, and sonographic cervical length: tolerability and prediction of vaginal birth and vaginal birth within 24 hours following labour induction in nulliparous women. BJOG. 2017;124(8):1274–1283. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14175.
    1. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(6):486 e481–486 e489. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.014.
    1. Nagele F, O'Connor H, Davies A, Badawy A, Mohamed H, Magos A. 2500 Outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopies. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88(1):87–92. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00108-1.
    1. Di Spiezio SA, Taylor A, Tsirkas P, Mastrogamvrakis G, Sharma M, Magos A. Hysteroscopy: a technique for all? Analysis of 5,000 outpatient hysteroscopies. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(2):438–443. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.056.
    1. Delaney S, Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas J, Sparks TN, Paul K, Caughey AB. Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(6):1239–1245. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181dec6d0.
    1. Schoen CN, Saccone G, Backley S, Sandberg EM, Gu N, Delaney S, Berghella V. Increased single-balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(9):1051–1060. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13353.
    1. Fruhman G, Gavard JA, Amon E, Flick KV, Miller C, Gross GA. Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):67 e61–67 e69. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.082.
    1. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13.
    1. McGee TM, Gidaszewski B, Khajehei M, Tse T, Gibbs E. Foley catheter silicone versus latex for term outpatient induction of labour: a randomised trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59(2):235–242. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12828.
    1. Forgie MM, Greer DM, Kram JJ, Vander Wyst KB, Salvo NP, Siddiqui DS. Foley catheter placement for induction of labor with or without stylette: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):397 e391–397 e310. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.043.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅