Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang Yang ◽  
Shijin Huang ◽  
Yu Long ◽  
Lingling Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Labor Induction ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Single Balloon

Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (08) ◽  
pp. 790-797
Author(s):  
Samantha X. de los Reyes ◽  
Jeanne S. Sheffield ◽  
Ahizechukwu C. Eke
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Labor Induction ◽  
Delivery Rate ◽  
Pool Data ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Balloon Catheters ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Single Balloon ◽  
Single Versus

Objective To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction. Study Design We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity I2 . For I2 values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: –1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56–1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55–1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56–1.18). Conclusion Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction.

Outpatient versus inpatient balloon catheter insertion for labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 101823
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim ◽  
Mohammad Abrar Shareef ◽  
Abdulhadi A. AlAmodi ◽  
Rehab Abdelhamid Aboshama ◽  
Mohamed Fathi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Labor Induction ◽  
Catheter Insertion ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Intracervical double‐balloon catheter versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening in labor induction in pregnancies with a high risk of uterine hyperstimulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Vega Cañadas ◽  
María Teulón González ◽  
Natalia Pagola Limón ◽  
María Sanz Alguacil ◽  
María García-Luján Prieto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Labor Induction ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Uterine Hyperstimulation

scholarly journals Comparison Between The Efficacy and Safety of The Single- (Love Baby) and Double-Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Hou ◽  
Weihong Wang ◽  
Dan Liu ◽  
Xuelan Li
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Delivery ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Expulsion Rate ◽  
Spontaneous Vaginal Delivery ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Balloon Catheters ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Single Balloon

Abstract Background: Induced labor is а progressively common obstetric procedure, Whether the specifically designed double-balloon catheter is better than the single-balloon device in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety yet remains controversial. Methods: In our study We have performed a Retrospective study in which 220 patients with immature cervix were admitted for induction of labor either through single cervix balloon catheter (love-baby) (SBC) or double cervix balloon catheter (DBC). The comparison showed that the cervical bishop score was slightly higher for the SBC after removal or expulsion of the balloon. Results:This was a proof that SBC demonstrates slightly better efficacy for cervical ripening with a shorter time from balloon placement to spontaneous vaginal delivery than DBC. No significant differences in the comparison between SBC and DBC following other parameters like spontaneous vaginal delivery, the initiate uterine contractions rate, the number of patients that needed oxytocin, the balloon spontaneous expulsion rate and others have been detected. Interestingly, SCB showed a higher incidence in adverse reactions leading to taking out the balloon halfway. The multi-factor analysis showed that the spontaneous labor was a risk factor for the cesarean section in SBC patients.Conclusion: These results prove that the new Chinese single balloon, also called love baby, can effectively induce labor as it may be highly recommendable for cervical ripening than DBC, though it could be with a higher incidence of adverse reactions causing the balloon to be pulled out halfway.

scholarly journals Outpatient cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 226 (1) ◽  
pp. S540-S541
Author(s):  
Katherine Gonzalez ◽  
Rachel Meislin ◽  
Jared T. Roeckner ◽  
Jordan McKinney ◽  
Luis Sanchez Ramos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Labor Induction ◽  
Cervical Ripening
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document