4.4 Article

Comparison of the Cook vaginal cervical ripening balloon with prostaglandin E2 insert for induction of labor in late pregnancy

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 302, 期 3, 页码 579-584

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05597-0

关键词

Post-term pregnancy; Cook; PGE2; Induction

资金

  1. Science and Technology Benefit People Special of Qingdao Science and Technology Bureau in China [19-6-1-56-nsh]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To compare the effectiveness of the Cook vaginal cervical ripening balloon (CCRB) with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) insert for induction of labor in late pregnancy in primipara. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of induction of labor using the improved Bishop score after CCRB or PGE2 administration, total stage of labor, hours until delivery (hours from placement of CCRB or PGE2 insert to parturition and delivery), delivery rate within 24 h, spontaneous delivery rate, successful induction rate, overstimulation syndrome, urgent delivery rate, pain scores, cesarean section rate, and outcomes related to delivery and perinatal morbidity, such as puerperal infection rate, total cost, satisfaction survey, and so on. Results The improved Bishop Score and delivery rate within 24 h in the CCRB group were significantly higher than in the PGE2 group. The total stage of labor and hours until delivery in the CCRB group were significantly shorter than that in the PGE2 group. Rate of overstimulation syndrome and pain scores in the CCRB group were significantly lower than in the PGE2 group. Compared with the PGE2 group, the mean duration of hospitalization in the CCRB group was shorter and the total cost was less. No difference in satisfaction between the PGE2 and CCRB groups was observed. Conclusions Compared with PGE2, CCRB reduced the total stage of labor, hours until delivery, pain scores, mean length of hospitalization, and total cost. CCRB increased the rate of delivery within 24 h with similar safety and maternal satisfaction compared with PGE2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据