CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2023; 83(12): 1491-1499
DOI: 10.1055/a-2103-8329
GebFra Science
Review

Synthetic Osmotic Dilators for Pre-Induction Cervical Ripening – an Evidence-Based Review

Synthetische osmotische Dilatatoren zur Zervixreifung vor Geburtseinleitung – eine evidenzbasierte Übersicht
Werner Rath
1   Medizinische Fakultät, Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
,
Julia Kummer
2   Klinik für Geburtsmedizin und Klinik für Gynäkologie, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany
,
Josefine T. Königbauer
3   Klinik für Geburtsmedizin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN234422)
,
Lars Hellmeyer
2   Klinik für Geburtsmedizin und Klinik für Gynäkologie, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany
,
Patrick Stelzl
4   Universitätsklinik für Gynäkologie, Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologische Endokrinologie, Kepler Universitätsklinikum, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Linz, Austria (Ringgold ID: RIN31197)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Mechanical methods have gained growing interest for pre-induction cervical ripening in women with an unripe cervix, since they have a better safety profile compared to prostaglandins. Balloon catheters have been the gold standard method for decades, while there was a lack of data on synthetic osmotic cervical dilators.

Not until 2015, when Dilapan-S was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for induction of labor, numerous studies have been published on the use of Dilapan-S in this field. The rate of vaginal deliveries associated with the use of Dilapan-S ranges from 61.6 to 81.7%, and no serious complications needing further interventions have been reported to this date.

Dilapan-S was shown to be as effective as the Foley balloon catheter as well as the 10 mg PGE2 vaginal insert and orally applied misoprostol (25 µg every 2 hours) in achieving vaginal delivery, but patient’s satisfaction during the cervical ripening process was significantly higher compared to the other methods and the rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower compared to prostaglandins (PGs).

Minor complications (e.g. vaginal bleeding) associated with the use of Dilapan-S were < 2%, and maternal infectious morbidity was not higher compared to Foley balloon and vaginal PGE2 or misoprostol.

Due to these beneficial properties Dilapan-S might be an ideal option for outpatient cervical ripening, as shown in a recent randomized clinical trial comparing inpatient to outpatient cervical ripening.

Furthermore, according to the manufacturers’ product information, Dilapan-S is the only cervical ripening method that is not contraindicated for induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean section. Upcoming guidelines should consider synthetic osmotic cervical dilators as an effective and safe method for cervical ripening/induction of labor acknowledging that more evidence-based data are mandatory, particularly in patients with a previous cesarean section.

Zusammenfassung

Mechanische Methoden haben zur Zervixreifung/Geburtseinleitung bei Schwangeren mit unreifer Zervix zunehmendes Interesse erlangt, da diese ein höheres Sicherheitsprofil aufweisen als Prostaglandine. Ballonkatheter sind seit Jahrzehnten der Goldstandard, während es bisher nur wenige Daten zu synthetischen osmotischen Zervixdilatatoren gibt.

Erst als Dilapan-S 2015 von der Food and Drug Administration (FDA) zur Geburtseinleitung zugelassen wurde, wurden zahlreiche Studien zum Einsatz von Dilapan-S veröffentlicht. Die Rate vaginaler Entbindungen im Zusammenhang mit der Anwendung von Dilapan-S liegt zwischen 61,5 und 81,7%, wobei bis heute über keine schwerwiegenden Komplikationen mit Notwendigkeit zu weiteren Interventionen berichtet wurde.

Dilapan-S erwies sich bezüglich der Rate vaginaler Geburten als vergleichbar effektiv wie der Foley-Ballonkatheter, das 10-mg-Prostaglandin-E2-(PGE2-)Vaginalinsert und Misoprostol oral (25 µg alle 2 Stunden). Allerdings zeigte sich eine wesentlich höhere Patientinnenzufriedenheit während des Zervixreifungsprozesses im Vergleich zu den anderen Methoden, und darüber hinaus war die Rate an uterinen Hyperstimulationen signifikant geringer im Vergleich zu Prostaglandinen.

Die Rate leichter Komplikationen (z. B. vaginale Blutung) im Zusammenhang mit der Anwendung von Dilapan-S liegt < 2%, und die infektionsbedingte maternale Morbidität war im Vergleich zum Foley-Ballonkatheter, zu vaginalem PGE2 und Misoprostol nicht höher.

Aufgrund dieser vorteilhaften Eigenschaften könnte Dilapan-S eine ideale Option für die ambulante Zervixreifung darstellen, wie erst kürzlich in einer randomisierten klinischen Studie gezeigt werden konnte, in welcher die stationäre mit der ambulanten Zervixreifung verglichen wurde.

Darüber hinaus ist Dilapan-S, laut Produktinformation des Herstellers, die einzige Methode zur Zervixreifung, die im Rahmen der Geburtseinleitung bei Schwangeren mit vorangegangenem Kaiserschnitt nicht kontraindiziert ist. Zukünftige Leitlinien sollten daher synthetische osmotische Zervixdilatatoren als eine wirksame und sichere Methode zur Zervixreifung/Geburtseinleitung berücksichtigen, allerdings sind mehr evidenzbasierte Daten zwingend erforderlich, insbesondere bei Patientinnen mit vorangegangenem Kaiserschnitt.

Keywords

synthetic osmotic dilator (Dilapan-S) - pre-induction cervical ripening - efficacy - safety - balloon catheter - prostaglandins

Schlüsselwörter

synthetische osmotische Dilatatoren (Dilapan-S) - Zervixreifung/Geburtseinleitung - Effektivität - Sicherheitsprofil - Ballonkatheter - Prostaglandine


Publication History

Received: 23 March 2023

Accepted: 31 May 2023

Article published online:
07 July 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Osterman MJK, Hamilton BE, Martin JA. et al. Births: Final data for 2020. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2021; 70: 1-50
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 NHS. NHS Maternity Statistics, England 2021–22. 2022 Accessed February 25, 2023 at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-maternity-statistics/2021-22#
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 IQTIG: Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen. Basisauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2020, Geburtshilfe 2021. Accessed February 25, 2023 at: https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2020/16n1gebh/QSKH_16n1-GEBH_2020_BUAW_V01_2021-08-10.pdf
  • 4 Norman IE. Intraamnial Foley catheter for induction of labour. Lancet 2011; 378: 2054-2055
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rath W, Stelzl P, Kehl S. Outpatient induction of labour – are balloon catheters an appropriate method?. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 70-80
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rath W, Kehl S. Renaissance of transcervical balloon catheters for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75: 1130-1139
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Voigt F, Goecke TW, Najjari L. et al. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction in Germany: a national survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 187: 85-89
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kehl S, Weiss C, Rath W. et al. Labor induction with misoprostol in German Obstetric clinics. What are the facts on such use?. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 955-965
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Durie D, Lawai A, Zegelbone P. Other mechanical methods for pre-induction cervical ripening. Semin Perinatol 2015; 39: 444-449
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gupta J, Chodomkar 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Johnson N. Intracervical tents: usage and mode of action. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1989; 44: 410-420
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Blumenthal PD, Ramanauskas R. Randomized trial of Dilapan and Laminaria as cervical ripening agents before induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 365-368
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Drunecky T, Reidingerova M, Pilsova M. et al. Experimental comparison of properties of natural and synthetic osmotic dilators. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 292: 349-354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Seagraves E, Waller J, Deyoung T. et al. Longitudinal ultrasound evaluation of Dilapan-S diameter during cervical ripening. AJOG 2022; 226: S627-S628
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Sanchez-Ramos I, Kaunitz AM, Connor PM. Hygroscopic cervical dilators and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening: a randomized prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1992; 37: 355-359
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Krammer J, Williams MC, Sawai SK. et al. Pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of two methods. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 614-618
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Gilson GJ, Russell DJ, Izquierdo A. et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of a hygroscopic cervical dilator, Dilapan, in the preinduction ripening of patients undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Vanaja K. et al. Preinduction cervical ripening prostaglandin E2 gel vs. hygroscopic mechanical dilator. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997; 23: 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hibbard JM, Shashoua A, Adamczyk C. et al. Cervical ripening with prostaglandin gel and hygroscopic dilators. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1998; 6: 18-24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Upadhyaya NB, Childs KD, Neiger R. et al. Ambulatory cervical ripening in term pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1999; 44: 363-366
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Maier JT, Schalinski E, Gauger U. et al. Cervical ripening with a osmotic dilator (Dilapan-S) in term pregnancies – an observational study. J Gynecol Neonatal Biol 2015; 1: 1-6
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 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: e0189665
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Saad AF, Villareal 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: 275.e1-275.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Baev O, Babich DA, Prikhodko AM. et al. A comparison between labor induction with only Dilapan-S and a combination of mifepristone and Dilapan-S in nulliparous women: a prospective pilot study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021; 34: 2832-2837
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Pekarev OG, Brega ES, Gus AI. et al. Sonoelastography for the comparative assessment of cervical maturation after different approaches to cervical preparation ahead of labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35: 1865-1871
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Crosby DA, O’Reilly C, Mc Hale H. et al. A prospective pilot study of Dilapan-S compared to Propess for induction of labour at 41+ weeks in nulliparous pregnancy. Irish J Med Sci 2018; 187: 693-699
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Gupta JK, Maher A, Stubbs C. et al. A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022; 4: 100628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Gavara R, Saad AF, Wapner RJ. et al. Cervical ripening efficacy of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator compared with oral misoprostol at term. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139: 1083-1091
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Saad AF, Gupta J, Hruban L. et al. Predictors of vaginal delivery after cervical ripening using a synthetic osmotic dilator. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 246: 160-164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Familiari A, Khalil A, Rizzo G. et al. Adverse intrapartum outcome in pregnancies complicated by small for gestational age and late growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with Dinoprostone, Misoprostol or mechanical methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 252: 455-467
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 de Vaan MD, ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M. et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Syst Rev 2019; (10) CD001233
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Weeks AD, Lightly K, Mol B-M. et al. Evaluating misoprostol and mechanical methods for induction of labour. BJOG 2022; 129: e61-e65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Kashanian M, Eshraghi N, Sheikhansari N. et al. Comparing the efficacy of Dilapan with extra-amniotic saline infusion and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in term pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021; 23: 1-5
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Saad AF, Gavara R, Senguttuvan RN. et al. Outpatient compared with inpatient preinduction cervical ripening using a synthetic osmotic dilator: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 140: 584-590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Saunders SJ, Saunders R, Wong T. et al. Out-of-hospital cervical ripening with a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator may reduce hospital costs and cesarean sections in the United States – a cost-consequence analysis. Frontiers 2021; 9: 689115
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Walker KF, Zaher S, Torrejon R. et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or dinoprostone vaginal insert (Propess) for inpatient induction of labor: A UK cost-consequence model Eur. J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022; 278: 72-76
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Kummer J, Koenigbauer JT, Callister Y. et al. Cervical ripening as an outpatient procedure in the pandemia-minimizing the inpatient days and lowering the socioeconomic costs. J Perinat Med 2022; 50: 1180-1188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guideline. Inducing labour May 2021. Accessed February 27, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng207/resources/inducing-labour-pdf-66143719773637
  • 39 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) e.V., Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG), Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG). AWMF-Leitlinie 015–088, Geburtseinleitung. 2020 Accessed February 27, 2023 at: https://register.awmf.org/assets/guidelines/015-088ladd_S2k_Geburtseinleitung_2021-04.pdf
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol [Anonym]. 2019; 133: e10-e127
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Maier JT, Metz M, Watermann N. et al. Induction of labor in patients with an unfavourable cervix after a cesarean using an osmotic dilator versus vaginal prostaglandin. J Perinat Med 2018; 46: 299-307
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Koenigbauer JT, Schalinski E, Jerschau U. et al. Cervical ripening after cesarean section – a prospective dual centre study comparing a mechanical osmotic dilatator vs. prostaglandin E2. J Perinat Med 2021; 49: 797-805
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar