• Baron B Matonhodze, G Justus Hofmeyr, and Jonathan Levin.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Coronation Hospital, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
• S. Afr. Med. J. 2003 May 1; 93 (5): 375-9.

ObjectivesTo compare three methods of labour induction.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingAcademic hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa.SubjectsWomen with intact membranes due for induction of labour.MethodRandomised, sealed opaque envelopes were used to allocate women to labour induction with extra-amniotic Foley catheter/titrated oral misoprostol solution (N = 174), titrated oral misoprostol solution alone (N = 176), or vaginal dinoprostone (N = 176). Misoprostol was dissolved in water and 20-40 g was given 2-hourly.Outcome MeasuresThese were failure to deliver vaginally within 24 hours, additional measures for induction or augmentation of labour, analgesia, and maternal and fetal complications.ResultsIn the Foley catheter group, misoprostol was required in all but 1 case. Failure to deliver vaginally within 24 hours was similar for the three groups (79/174 v. 70/176 v. 70/176 respectively). Labour augmentation, caesarean section and instrumental delivery were used somewhat more frequently in the Foley/misoprostol group than in the misoprostol alone group, but these differences were not statistically significant. More analgesia was used in the Foley catheter/misoprostol group than in the misoprostol group (64/172 v. 46/175). Side-effects and neonatal complications were similar for the three groups.ConclusionsUse of extra-amniotic Foley catheter placement showed no measurable benefits over the use of oral misoprostol alone, or vaginal dinoprostone.

34 keywords...

hide…