RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pain experience of women induced by intravaginal dinoprostone (Propess®), oral misoprostol (Angusta®) or double balloon catheter (Cook®). METHODS: This single-center prospective study was carried out in the obstetric gynecology department of the university hospital of Saint-Etienne from March 2018 to April 2021 in women requiring cervical ripening for the purpose of artificial labor induction. RESULTS: We included 82 women in the oral misoprostol group, 35 in the vaginal dinoprostone group and 58 in the balloon group. The overall pain, assessed by a numerical scale from 0 to 10, was similar for the different methods of induction (p = 0.253). Pain at insertion was greater with the double balloon catheter compared to the vaginal dinoprostone (3.67 versus 5.75 p = 0.001). Pain in the 2 h prior to the delivery room was greater with vaginal dinoprostone and oral misoprostol compared with the double balloon catheter (7.91 and 7.4 versus 5.47 respectively, p = <0.0001). Women induced by balloon catheter would more often have preferred to be induced by another method compared to those induced by oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone (p = 0.004). Adjusting for previous cesarian section, gestational age at delivery, need for oxytocin augmentation and indication for induction, women induced by balloon were five times more risk to prefer another induction method (OR 5.01 95% CI [1.09-23.03], p = 0.038). There was no significant difference in stress and overall experience of induction depending on the method. CONCLUSION: In order to improve the women experience, information, consent and participation in the decisions and choices of their induction method are essential.
