Hygroscopic dilators vs balloon catheter ripening of the cervix for induction of labor in nulliparous women at term: Retrospective study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of hygroscopic dilators and balloon catheters for ripening of the cervix in induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, observational study used data from the Successive Pregnancy Birth Registry System of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology from 2012 to 2014. Nulliparous women in whom labor was induced by mechanical methods of cervical ripening at term were enrolled. The eligible women were divided into dilator, balloon <40 mL, balloon ≧40 mL, and overlapping groups. RESULTS: The groups included 4645, 4100, 6615, and 1992 women, respectively. In the overlapping group, which included the women in whom delivery was most difficult, the vaginal delivery rate was lower and the intrauterine infection and neonatal mortality rates were higher than those in the dilator group. No difference in the vaginal delivery rate was observed among the dilator, balloon <40 mL, and balloon ≧40 mL groups (74.6%, 72.3%, and 73.8%, respectively; p>0.05). The vaginal instrumental delivery rate was higher in the two-balloon groups than in the dilator group. The volume of intrapartum hemorrhage was lowest in the dilator group. No significant difference in the frequencies of uterine rupture and intrauterine infection were observed among the dilator and two-balloon groups. With regard to neonatal outcomes, the frequency of a low Apgar score was statistically significantly lower in the dilator group than in the two-balloon groups. Moreover, the frequency of neonatal death tended to be lower in the dilator group than in the two-balloon groups. CONCLUSION: With regard to cervical ripening for labor induction in nulliparous women at term, the vaginal delivery rate on using a dilator and on using a balloon seems to be equivalent. Concerning maternal complications and neonatal outcomes, cervical ripening with hygroscopic dilators in labor induction might be safer.