Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006;107:234-239
© 2006 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karjane, N. W.
Right arrow Articles by Walsh, S. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karjane, N. W.
Right arrow Articles by Walsh, S. W.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Induction of Labor Using a Foley Balloon, With and Without Extra-Amniotic Saline Infusion

Nicole W. Karjane, MD, Ellen L. Brock, MD, MPH and Scott W. Walsh, PhD

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare transcervical Foley bulb with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion for induction of labor in patients with an unfavorable cervix.

METHODS: Women who presented for induction of labor with Bishop score less than 5 were randomly assigned to receive Foley alone or Foley with extra-amniotic saline infusion for induction of labor. Primary outcome was time from start of induction to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes were cesarean delivery rates, incidence of chorioamnionitis, Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, and adverse events.

RESULTS: One hundred forty women completed the study. Time from induction to vaginal delivery was 16.58 (± 7.55) hours in the extra-amniotic saline infusion group compared with 21.47 (± 9.95) hours in the Foley group (P < .01). Chorioamnionitis occurred in 4 of 66 (6.1%) women in the extra-amniotic saline infusion group compared with 12 of 74 (16.2%) women in the Foley group (P = .067). Cesarean delivery rate was 21.2% versus 20.1% in the extra-amniotic saline infusion and Foley groups, respectively (P = 1.0). Median 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores were 9 in both groups. Adverse events were rare and unrelated to method of induction.

CONCLUSION: Induction of labor by using Foley with extra-amniotic saline infusion results in shorter induction-to-vaginal-delivery time than Foley alone, without affecting cesarean delivery rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-1




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Obstet GynecolHome page
M. G. Lin, K. J. Reid, M. R. Treaster, F. S. Nuthalapaty, P. S. Ramsey, and G. C. Lu
Transcervical Foley Catheter With and Without Extraamniotic Saline Infusion for Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Obstet. Gynecol., September 1, 2007; 110(3): 558 - 565.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.