Journal of Health And Care
Volume 20, Issue 2 (summer 2018)
JHC 2018, 20(2): 139-147 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mohammad Alipour M, Jafari Zare S, Sohrabi M, Ejder Apay S, Sakar T. Comparison of the Effect of Cervical Catheter and Hot Water Showers on the Progression of Normal Delivery and Its Conversion to Cesarean Delivery. JHC 2018; 20 (2) :139-147
URL: http://hcjournal.arums.ac.ir/article-1-914-en.html
URL: http://hcjournal.arums.ac.ir/article-1-914-en.html
Department of Midwifery, Islamic Azad University, Khalkhal Branch, Khalkhal, Iran
Abstract: (6707 Views)
Background & aim: Stimulation of labor pain is one of the most common and necessary procedures in midwifery. Delivery is induced to accelerate the delivery process in more than 15% of pregnancies. In this study, two labor induction methods, including Foley catheter insertion and hot water shower, were compared with natural vaginal delivery.
Methods: A clinical trial study was conducted on 150 nulliparous pregnants at gestational weeks of 40-41. Patients were divided into three groups randomly. Groups 1, 2, and 3 were performed using catheterization, warm shower, and routine delivery, respectively. All patients went under Induction using oxytocin after the performance. Descriptive-analytical tests were used to assess the progress of labor using SPSS/v16.
Results: The mean age in the three groups were 24.70±11.43, 24.19±10.23 and 23.92±10.30 years, respectively (p=0.728). The slow progression of labor in the first and second groups and the post-date delivery in the third group were the most common causes of induction. There were no significant differences in the pain intensity of uterine contractions between groups before intervention (p<0.169). After the intervention, the pain intensity was increased in all groups significantly (p<0.001). The highest and lowest increases in pain were seen in induction (2.08) and hot water shower (0.03) groups, respectively. The shortest time between contraction and complete dilation of the cervix was revealed in the first group (p<0.001). Normal deliveries leading to the Cesarean operation had the highest rate in the third group (p=0.266).
Conclusion: It seems that Foley's catheter insertion has a positive effect on the process of delivery as well as the warm shower bath reduces the pain of patients during the delivery process.
Methods: A clinical trial study was conducted on 150 nulliparous pregnants at gestational weeks of 40-41. Patients were divided into three groups randomly. Groups 1, 2, and 3 were performed using catheterization, warm shower, and routine delivery, respectively. All patients went under Induction using oxytocin after the performance. Descriptive-analytical tests were used to assess the progress of labor using SPSS/v16.
Results: The mean age in the three groups were 24.70±11.43, 24.19±10.23 and 23.92±10.30 years, respectively (p=0.728). The slow progression of labor in the first and second groups and the post-date delivery in the third group were the most common causes of induction. There were no significant differences in the pain intensity of uterine contractions between groups before intervention (p<0.169). After the intervention, the pain intensity was increased in all groups significantly (p<0.001). The highest and lowest increases in pain were seen in induction (2.08) and hot water shower (0.03) groups, respectively. The shortest time between contraction and complete dilation of the cervix was revealed in the first group (p<0.001). Normal deliveries leading to the Cesarean operation had the highest rate in the third group (p=0.266).
Conclusion: It seems that Foley's catheter insertion has a positive effect on the process of delivery as well as the warm shower bath reduces the pain of patients during the delivery process.
Type of Study: randomized clinical trial |
Received: 2018/03/5 | Accepted: 2018/06/8 | Published: 2018/06/27
Received: 2018/03/5 | Accepted: 2018/06/8 | Published: 2018/06/27
References
1. Afolabi BB, Oyeneyin OL, Ogedengbe OK. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2005;89(3):263–67. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.02.010] [PMID]
2. Barrilleaux PS, Bofill JA, Terrone DA, Magann EF, May WL, Morrison JC. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002;186(6):1124–129. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2002.123821]
3. Nimbalkar PB, Patel JN, Thakor N. Efficacy of misoprostol over Foley's catheter as a cervical ripening agent: a comparative study. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;6(12):5288-292.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20175068 [DOI:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20175060]
4. Dalui R, Suri V, Ray P, Gupta I. Comparison of extra amniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2005;84(4):362–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/j.0001-6349.2005.00662.x [DOI:10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00662.x] [PMID]
5. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Tomera S, Uccella S, Lischetti B, Bolis P. Cervical ripening with the Foley catheter. International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2007;97(2):105–109. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.10.014] [PMID]
6. Faraji-Darkhaneh R. Effect of Foley catheter in preparation of cervix for delivery. Journal of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. 2001;10(39):83–88 [Persian].
7. Kahnamoei-Aghdam F, Mobaraki N, Amani F, Yavarzadeh M. Effect of Foley catheter in preparation of cervix for delivery. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2015;3(10):2643–646 [Persian]. [DOI:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20150806]
8. Ghezzi F, Massimo F, Raio L, Di Naro E, Balestreri D, Bolis P. Extra-amniotic Foley catheter and prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening at term gestation. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2001;97(2):183–87. [DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(00)00544-3]
9. Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McCleery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labor in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2010;65(2):78-80. [DOI:10.1097/01.ogx.0000368138.31846.fc]
10. Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical Foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 2006;16(4):276–79. [PMID]
11. Masoudi M, Akbari S. The comparison of Entonox and warm water effect on labor pain. Yafte. 2011;12(2):25–32 [Persian].
12. Madady S, Sehati F, MohammadAlizadeh S, Mirghafourvand M. Effect of hot shower and intravenous injection of hyoscine on childbirth experience of nulliparous women: a randomized clinical trial. The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2017;20(2):78-88 [Persian].
13. Shahpourian F, Kiani K, Sedighian H, Hosseini F. The effect of water birth on labor Pain during active phase of labor. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2008;14(57):101-111 [Persian].
14. Moneta J, Okninska A, Wielgos M, Przyboś A, Chrostowska J, Marianowski L. The influence of warm water immersion on the course of labor. Ginekologia Polska. 2001; 72(12):1031-1036. [PMID]
15. Lenstrup C, Schantz A, Berget A, Feder E, Rosenö H, Hertel J. Warm tub bath during delivery. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 1987;66(7):709-12. [DOI:10.3109/00016348709004148]
16. Movahed F, Norozi N. Comparison of early versus late amniotomy following cervical ripening with Foley catheter. Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. 2008;12(3):26-31 [Persian].
17. Vahid-Roudsari F, Ayati S, Ghasemi M, Hasanzadeh-Mofrad M, Shakeri M, Farshidi F, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2011;10(1):149-54. [PMID] [PMCID]
18. Malarewicz A, Wydrzynski G, Szymkiewicz J, Adamczyk-Gruszka O. The influence of water immersion on the course of first stage of parturition in primiparous women. Medycyna Wieku Rozwojowego. 2005;9(4):773-80. [PMID]
19. Ganji Z, Shirvani M, Rezaei-Abhari F, Danesh M. The effect of intermittent local heat and cold on labor pain and child birth outcome. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2013;18(4):298–303 [Persian]. [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Liu Y, Liu Y, Huang X, Du C, Peng J, Huang P, et al. A comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes between water immersion during labor and conventional labor and delivery. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:160. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-14-160] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. da Silva FMB, de Oliveira SMJ. The effect of immersion baths on the length of childbirth labor. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP. 2006;40(1):57–63. [PMID]
22. da Silva FMB, de Oliveira SMJ, Nobre M. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of immersion bath on labor pain. Midwifery. 2009;25(3):286-94. [DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2007.04.006] [PMID]
23. Jagielska I, Kazdepka-Ziemińska A, Janicki R, Fórmaniak J, Grabiec M, Walentowicz-Sadłecka M. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Foley catheter pre-induction of labor. Ginekologia Polska. 2013;84(3):180-85. [PMID]
24. Rath W. A clinical evaluation of controlled released in oprostone for cervical ripening- Are view of current evidence in hospital and outpatient settings. Journal of Perinatal Medicine. 2005;33(6):491-99. [DOI:10.1515/JPM.2005.087] [PMID]
25. Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander V, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Nupponen I, Paavonen J, et al. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. Journal of Perinatology. 2016;36(8):618–22. [DOI:10.1038/jp.2016.62] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |