Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e2034-e2046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770161
Original Article

Cervical Osmotic Dilators versus Dinoprostone for Cervical Ripening during Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 14 Controlled Trials

Abdulrahman Al-Matary
1   Department of Neonatology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Saud A. Alsharif
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
,
Ibtihal A. Bukhari
3   Clinical Sciences Department, College of Medicine, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Saeed Baradwan
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
,
Majed S. Alshahrani
5   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia
,
Khalid Khadawardi
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
,
Ehab Badghish 
7   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternity and Children Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
,
Bayan Albouq 
8   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz National Guard Hospital, Madinah, Saudi Arabia
,
Afnan Baradwan
9   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mediclinic Almurjan Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammed Abuzaid
10   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Muhayl General Hospital, Muhayl, Saudi Arabia
,
Haifa Al-Jundy
11   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Sulaiman Al-Habib Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Abdullah Alyousef
12   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Almaarefa University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
,
Wael S. Ragab
13   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt
,
Ahmed Abu-Zaid 
14   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
15   Department Pharmacology, College of Graduate Health Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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-analysis

Note

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.


Supplementary Material



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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000 Res 2019; 8: 8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Simpson KR. Trends in labor induction in the United States, 1989 to 2020. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2022; 47 (04) 235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88 (06) 990-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bagratee JS, Moodley J. Synthetic laminaria tent for cervical ripening. S Afr Med J 1990; 78 (12) 738-741
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dickersin K, Berlin JA. Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev 1992; 14: 154-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38 (02) 267-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Shirley M. Dinoprostone vaginal insert: a review in cervical ripening. Drugs 2018; 78 (15) 1615-1624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar