Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Adalberto Aguemi"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Artigos Originais

    Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2010;32(7):346-351

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2010;32(7):346-351

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032010000700007

    Views3

    PURPOSE: to compare the effectiveness of the Foley balloon with vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. METHODS: randomized clinical trial, not blind, conducted from January 2006 to January 2008. A total of 160 pregnant women with indication for induction of labor were included and divided into two groups, 80 for Foley and 80 for vaginal misoprostol. Inclusion criteria were: gestational age of 37 weeks or more, a live single fetus with cephalic presentation and a Bishop score of four or less. We excluded patients with a uterine scar, ruptured membranes, estimated fetal weight greater than 4000 g, placenta previa, chorioamnionitis and conditions that imposed the immediate termination of pregnancy. Statistical tests employed were Mann-Whitney, χ2 test or Fisher's exact test, and p value was significant if less than 0.005. RESULTS: misoprostol triggered more frequently spontaneous delivery (50.0 versus 15.0% for Foley, p<0.001) and required less use of oxytocin (41.2 versus 76.2%), and this group presented more tachysystole (21.2 versus 5.0%). The Foley catheter caused more discomfort to the patient (28.7 versus 1.2%). There were no differences in the time required for development of the Bishop score (20.69 versus 21.36 hours), for triggering delivery (36.42 versus 29.57 hours) or in rates of cesarean delivery (51.2 versus 42.5%). There were no significant differences in perinatal performance, with similar rates of abnormal cardiotocography (20.0 versus 21.2%), presence of meconium (13.7 versus 17.5%) and need for neonatal intensive care unit (3.7 versus 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: the use of the Foley catheter was as effective as misoprostol for cervical ripening, but less effective in triggering spontaneous labor. Our results support the recommendation of its use for cervical ripening, especially in patients with cesarean scar.

    See more

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE