Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770161
Cervical Osmotic Dilators versus Dinoprostone for Cervical Ripening during Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 14 Controlled Trials
Funding None.![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/ajp/2024S01/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0043-1770161_22sep1573-1.jpg)
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal–neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction.
Study Design Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
Results Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed (n = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk n = 2, unclear risk n = 7, and high risk n = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality (n = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95–1.14, p = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93–1.17, p = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Conclusion During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal–neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal–neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events.
Key Points
-
This is the first analysis of cervical osmotic dilators versus PGE2 for cervical ripening during labor.
-
There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of normal vaginal/cesarean deliveries.
-
There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of neonatal adverse events.
-
Cervical osmotic dilators had significant lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2.
-
Cervical osmotic dilators may be superior to PGE2 in view of their similar efficacy and better safety.
Keywords
cervical osmotic dilators - dilapan - lamicel - laminaria - dinoprostone - cervical ripening - labor induction - meta-analysisNote
Review Manager Software version 5.4.0 for Windows and STATA Software version 17.0 for Windows were used.
Authors' Contributions
A.A.-M., S.A.A., I.A.B., S.B., M.S.A., K.K., E.B., B.A., A.B., M.A., H.A.-J., A.A., and W.S.R. contributed to literature review, data collection, data interpretation, and revision of manuscript for editorial and intellectual contents. A.A.-Z. contributed to study conception, data collection, data analysis, study supervision, and manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final draft of the manuscript.
Publication History
Received: 23 September 2022
Accepted: 19 May 2023
Article published online:
19 June 2023
© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR. et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11: 84
- 2 Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000 Res 2019; 8: 8
- 3 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
- 4 Swift EM, Gunnarsdottir J, Zoega H, Bjarnadottir RI, Steingrimsdottir T, Einarsdottir K. Trends in labor induction indications: A 20-year population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2022; 101 (12) 1422-1430
- 5 Simpson KR. Trends in labor induction in the United States, 1989 to 2020. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2022; 47 (04) 235
- 6 Kruit H, Gissler M, Heinonen S, Rahkonen L. Breaking the myth: the association between the increasing incidence of labour induction and the rate of caesarean delivery in Finland - a nationwide Medical Birth Register study. BMJ Open 2022; 12 (07) e060161
- 7 Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88 (06) 990-992
- 8 Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ, Livio S, Norman JE, Alfirevic Z. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9 (09) CD007701
- 9 Gupta J, Baev O, Duro Gomez J. et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022; 269: 138-142
- 10 Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296 (02) 167-179
- 11 Pierce S, Bakker R, Myers DA, Edwards RK. Clinical insights for cervical ripening and labor induction using prostaglandins. AJP Rep 2018; 8 (04) e307-e314
- 12 Roztocil A, Pilka L, Jelínek J, Koudelka M, Miklica J. A comparison of three preinduction cervical priming methods: prostaglandin E2 gel, Dilapan S rods and Estradiol gel. Ceska Gynekol 1998; 63 (01) 3-9
- 13 Gupta JK, Maher A, Stubbs C, Brocklehurst P, Daniels JP, Hardy P. Synthetic Osmotic Cervical Dilator for Induction of Labor in Comparison to Dinoprostone Vaginal insErt (SOLVE) collaborative group. A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022; 4 (04) 100628
- 14 Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Vanaja K, Ratnam SS. Preinduction cervical ripening: prostaglandin E2 gel vs hygroscopic mechanical dilator. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997; 23 (02) 171-177
- 15 Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Connor PM. Hygroscopic cervical dilators and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized, prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1992; 37 (04) 355-359
- 16 Koenigbauer JT, Schalinski E, Jarchau U. et al. Cervical ripening after cesarean section: a prospective dual center study comparing a mechanical osmotic dilator vs. prostaglandin E2. J Perinat Med 2021; 49 (07) 797-805
- 17 Maier JT, Metz M, Watermann N. et al. Induction of labor in patients with an unfavorable cervix after a cesarean using an osmotic dilator versus vaginal prostaglandin. J Perinat Med 2018; 46 (03) 299-307
- 18 Crosby DA, O'Reilly C, McHale H, McAuliffe FM, Mahony R. A prospective pilot study of Dilapan-S compared with Propess for induction of labour at 41+ weeks in nulliparous pregnancy. Ir J Med Sci 2018; 187 (03) 693-699
- 19 Krammer J, Williams MC, Sawai SK, O'Brien WF. Pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of two methods. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85 (04) 614-618
- 20 Cahill DJ, Clark HS, Martin DH. Cervical ripening: the comparative effectiveness of Lamicel and prostaglandin E2 tablets. Ir J Med Sci 1988; 157 (04) 113-114
- 21 Johnson IR, Macpherson MB, Welch CC, Filshie GM. A comparison of Lamicel and prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel for cervical ripening before induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151 (05) 604-607
- 22 Jeeva MA, Dommisse J. Laminaria tents or vaginal prostaglandins for cervical ripening. A comparative trial. S Afr Med J 1982; 61 (11) 402-403
- 23 Guinn DA, Goepfert AR, Christine M, Owen J, Hauth JC. Extra-amniotic saline, laminaria, or prostaglandin E(2) gel for labor induction with unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96 (01) 106-112
- 24 Bagratee JS, Moodley J. Synthetic laminaria tent for cervical ripening. S Afr Med J 1990; 78 (12) 738-741
- 25 Reinhard J, Raddatz R, Langer R. et al. Pilot study. Mechanical versus pharmacological term induction: a cohort group analysis of maternal and neonatal outcome–hygroscopic cervical dilator versus prostaglandin E2. Clin Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med 2016; 2 (04) 217-220
- 26 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
- 27 Higgins JGS. Ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Internet] [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Accessed June 5, 2023 at: www.handbook.cochrane.org
- 28 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
- 29 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25 (09) 603-605
- 30 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135
- 31 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188
- 32 Dickersin K, Berlin JA. Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev 1992; 14: 154-176
- 33 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
- 34 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634
- 35 Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38 (02) 267-279
- 36 Shirley M. Dinoprostone vaginal insert: a review in cervical ripening. Drugs 2018; 78 (15) 1615-1624
- 37 Gavara R, Saad AF, Wapner RJ. et al. Cervical ripening efficacy of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator compared with oral misoprostol at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139 (06) 1083-1091
- 38 Kashanian M, Eshraghi N, Sheikhansari N. Comparing the efficacy of dilapan with extra-amniotic saline infusion and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in term pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (25) 5616-5620
- 39 Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O. et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour-an international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 229: 70-75
- 40 Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J. et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (03) 275.e1-275.e9
- 41 Nicolaides KH, Welch CC, MacPherson MB, Johnson IR, Filshie GM. Lamicel: a new technique for cervical dilatation before first trimester abortion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90 (05) 475-479
- 42 Shindo R, Aoki S, Yonemoto N. et al. Hygroscopic dilators vs balloon catheter ripening of the cervix for induction of labor in nulliparous women at term: retrospective study. PLoS One 2017; 12 (12) e0189665
- 43 Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Debray TP. et al; GetReal Work Package 4. Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in network meta-analysis. Stat Med 2017; 36 (08) 1210-1226
- 44 Sarri G, Patorno E, Yuan H. et al. Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022; 27 (02) 109-119
- 45 Blumenthal PD, Ramanauskas R. Randomized trial of Dilapan and Laminaria as cervical ripening agents before induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75 (3, Pt 1): 365-368
- 46 Abu-Zaid A, Alshahrani MS, Al-Matary A. et al. Isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening during labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022; 276: 38-46
- 47 Abu-Zaid A, Khadawardi K, Al-Matary A. et al. Isosorbide mononitrate versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening during labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Sci 2023; 30 (02) 380-389
- 48 Turnquest MA, Lemke MD, Brown HL. Cervical ripening: randomized comparison of intravaginal prostaglandin E2 gel with prostaglandin E2 gel plus laminaria tents. J Matern Fetal Med 1997; 6 (05) 260-263
- 49 Hibbard JU, Shashoua A, Adamczyk C, Ismail M. Cervical ripening with prostaglandin gel and hygroscopic dilators. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1998; 6 (01) 18-24