English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Induction of labor should be used in the most efficient way possible that will result in a favorable obstetric outcome with minimum fetal morbidity. Objectives The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol alone versus intra cervical Foley catheter combined with vaginal misoprostol in induction of labor at term pregnancy. Methods This study was conducted at Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology Department; Ain Shams University, Maternity Hospital in the period between May 2017 to October 2017. The total number of patients studied was 120 patients, divided into two groups; the first group (A) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol, the second group (B) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol combined with trans cervical Foley catheter. Results The current study found that the combined group has a better chance for NVD 88.3% versus 78.3% in misoprostol alone group, a lesser probability to CS 11.7% in combined group versus 21.7% in misoprostol alone group and a shorter induction delivery interval within 12 hours after induction (81.6% in combined group versus 59.5% in misoprostol group). Regarding the effect of both methods on fetal safety, we found that non reassuring FHR was more common in combined group 8.3% than misoprostol alone group 1.7% but it’s statistically non-significant. There was statistically significant increase in tachysystole in combined group 28.3% versus 13.3% in misoprostol alone group. However, dystocia was more common in misoprostol group 15% than combined group 3.3% that is also statistically significant. Conclusion Both methods can be used in induction of labor at term pregnancy without forgetting the precautions and close observation to the mother and the fetus. Combined method results in a shorter induction-to delivery time, but misoprostol alone was safer for the mother and the fetus.

Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy