Transcervical Foley's catheter versus Cook balloon for cervical ripening in stillbirth with a scarred uterus: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the use of transcervical Foley's catheter versus Cook cervical ripening balloon in pregnant women with stillbirth, unfavorable cervix and scarred uterus. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SETTING: El Minia University Hospital, El Minia, Egypt. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two-hundred pregnant women with stillbirth, unfavorable cervix and scarred uterus were recruited into this study. They were randomized into two groups. In group I (n = 100), cervical ripening was done using Foley's catheter. In group II (n = 100), cervical ripening was done using Cook cervical ripening balloon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Balloon insertion to delivery interval, successful ripening rate, cesarean delivery rate, maternal adverse events and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: Time from balloon insertion to expulsion and from balloon insertion to delivery was significantly shorter in Foley's catheter group. However, the difference between the two groups regarding time from balloon insertion to active labor, time from balloon expulsion to delivery, cervical ripening, cesarean section, instrumental delivery, pain score, need for analgesia, hospital stay and maternal satisfaction was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Foley's catheter and Cook cervical ripening balloon are comparable regarding efficacy and safety profile when used to ripen the cervix in pregnant women with stillbirth, unfavorable cervix and scarred uterus. However, Foley's catheter has a shorter induction to delivery interval and is relatively cheaper device.

Timing of elective repeated cesarean delivery in patients with previous two or more cesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the maternal and neonatal consequences of scheduling elective repeated cesarean section (ERCS) at 39 weeks rather than 38 weeks and to assess the impacts of delivering by emergency cesarean section (CS) before the planned date. DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort study. POPULATION: Patients with previous two or more CS planned for ERCS at term during the period from January to June 2011. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for demographic and clinical data, planned timing of CS, emergency cesarean and any adverse maternal or neonatal outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse maternal or neonatal outcome. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty women were included, 71.4% of cases were posted <39 weeks and 28.6% were posted at ≥39 weeks. Patients posted ≥ 39 weeks were more prone to deliver by emergency CS (16.6 vs. 10.6%) and the neonates were less prone to RDS and NICU admission (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data support the justification to book patients for ERCS at ≥39 weeks.

The effect of second trimester emergency cervical cerclage on perinatal outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of emergency cervical cerclage and to determine predictors of failure or success in women with cervical incompetence. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for clinical and demographic data, gestational age at time of cerclage, cerclage-delivery interval, gestational age at time of delivery; and birth weight. Predictors of success and failure were analyzed. RESULT: Forty-three pregnant women between 18 and 25 weeks of gestation were recruited. The mean gestational age at time of cerclage was 21 weeks. The mean cerclage-delivery interval was 64 days. The mean gestation at delivery was 31 weeks and the mean neonatal birth weight was 2166 g. Whether cerclage done before or after 20 weeks, the difference in cerclage-delivery interval was insignificant while the difference in gestational age at time of delivery and neonatal birth weight was significant. Presence of infection, presence of symptoms, membranes through the cervix and dilated cervix >3 cm are frequently associated with failure. CONCLUSION: Emergency cervical cerclage is effective in prolonging pregnancy and improving neonatal outcome in patient with cervical incompetence. However, large prospective randomized controlled studies are recommended.