Introduction: Induction methods are many such as intravaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, intracervical dinoprostone, etc. Presently, a very limited number of studies are available for comparing all three popular methods intravaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, and intracervical dinoprostone.Aims and objectives: Comparison of efficacy of pervaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, and intracervical dinoprostone on induction of labor and fetomaternal outcome.Materials and methods: It is a prospective study conducted on 273 patients divided into 3 groups, and each group included 90 study subjects.• Group I -Foley catheter of No. 18 introduced in the cervical canal.The Foley catheter balloon is filled with 50 mL of normal saline.• Group II -Dinoprostone 2.5 mL of 0.5 mg injected into the cervical canal below the internal os under aseptic precautions.• Group III -Tablet misoprostol 25-µg pervaginally put in the posterior fornix.Continuous observation of the patients will be done in all groups.Results: Success of induction was 100% in the Foley catheter, 92.3% in dinoprostone gel, and 90% in the misoprostol group, respectively.Vaginal delivery occurred-83.51% in Foley catheter, 59.34% in dinoprostone gel, and 73.62% in the misoprostol groups, respectively.The mean induction to delivery interval time was 16.78 ± 6.5 hours in the Foley catheter group, 12.87 ± 6.41 hours in the dinoprostone gel group, and 11.16 ± 5.97 in the misoprostol group.Conclusion: Foley catheter is superior to dinoprostone gel and misoprostol in achieving vaginal delivery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nipanal et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: