OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate which of the two analyzed methods of preinduction: intracervical Foley catether and intracervical @entity1421 is related to higher rate of successful vaginal delivery in shorter time and to shorter hospitalization after the delivery. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of 198 @entity1 with unfavorable cervix for labor induction (Bishop score  <= 6), hospitalized at 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, was carried out. In 105 @entity1 labor preinduction was conducted with Foley catheter (study group) and in 93 with intracervical @entity1421 (control group). RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding @entity1 ' age, body mass index (BMI), @entity1017 during the pregnancy, duration of pregnancy and parity between the groups. 68.6% of @entity1 in the study group and 65.6% in the control group delivered vaginally (p=0.65). In the study group significantly less @entity1 developed spontaneous onset of labor (36.2% vs 66.7%; p<0.001). The time from preinduction to delivery onset and from preinduction to vaginal delivery were longer in the study group (780 min vs 489 min; 1682 min vs 920 min; p<0.001). The time of hospitalization after the delivery was significantly shorter in the study group (4.1 days vs 6.8; (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both Foley catheter and @entity1421 seem to be equally effective in achieving vaginal delivery. In terms of time effectiveness Foley catheter preinduction is related to longer time from preinduction to delivery, nevertheless shorter time of hospitalization.

Two methods of cervix ripening: intracervical Foley catether and XXXX - which one is actually more efficient?

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women', 'patients'] @entity1421 :: ('MESH:D015232', 'Chemical') :: ['dinoprostone'] @entity1017 :: ('MESH:D015430', 'Disease') :: ['weight gain']
@entity1421 :: (MESH:D015232,Chemical) :: ['dinoprostone']
