Article Sidebar
Published:
Mar 17, 2016Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Labour induction at term - a randomised trial comparing Foley catheter plus titrated oral misoprostol solution, titrated oral misoprostol solution alone, and dinoprostone
Abstract
Objectives. To compare three methods of labour induction.
Design. Randomised controlled trial.
Setting. Academic hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Subjects. Women with intact membranes due for induction of labour.
Method. Randomised, 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 measures. These were failure to deliver vaginally within 24 hours, additional measures for induction or augmentation of labour, analgesia, and maternal and fetal complications. Results. In 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.
Conclusions. Use of extra-amniotic Foley catheter placement showed no measurable benefits over the use of oral misoprostol alone, or vaginal dinoprostone.
