Published: 2017-01-14

Effects Foley catheter placement to expedite the process of delivery

Fariba Kahnamoei Aghdam, Noushin Mobaraki, Firouz Amani, Mohammadali Yavarzadeh


Background: Finding a suitable procedure in cases requiring termination of pregnancy without having a ready cervix to induction of labor, is a considerable problem in midwifery. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of Foley catheter placement with oxytocin to expedite the process of delivery.

Methods: This is an interventional study. In this study, patient information including age, gestational age, residence place, education, induction time, induction complications, cesarean delivery after induction were entered in a checklist. Collected data analyzed by descriptive and analytical statistical methods in SPSS.16.

Results: In this study 100 pregnant women were enrolled in two equal size groups, case (receiving a Foley catheter and oxytocin) and control (receiving oxytocin), each with 50 patient. The mean age of cases was 24.7±3.4 years and controls were 23.9±2.3 years and the most prevalent age group in both was 20-30. In cases 14 % and in controls 12 % were with underlying disease and 14% of women in case group and 24% of women in control group had narrowing of vaginal canal. The most common reason for starting induction in cases was lack of progress in labor and in controls dilation of delivery. The mean gestational age in cases was 39.9±1.9 and in control 39.2±1.8 weeks. In relation to dilatation progress, results showed that in cases individuals reached to full dilatation early and this difference was, in cases 14 % and in controls 22% of deliveries are ended to caesarean. 14% of deliveries in cases and 22% in controls are ended to Caesarean section. There was no significant difference between two groups in birth time Apgar score and 5 minutes after birth time.

Conclusions: Results showed that, Foley catheter could significantly reduce induction time significantly and resulted to faster labor but did not reduce the rate of caesarean.



Pregnancy termination, Labor induction, Cervix, Foley catheter

Full Text:



Langenegger E, Odendaal H, Grove D. Oralmisoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostonefor induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004; 88:242-8.

Wing D. Labor induction with misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:339-45.

Afolabi BB, Oyeneyin OL, Ogedengbe Ok. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89(3):263-7.

Riskin-Mashiah S, Wilkins I. Cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1999;26:243-57.

Rath W. A clinical evauation of controlled release dinoprostone for cervical ripening- A review of current evidence in hospital and outpatient settings. J Perinat Med. 2005; 33:491-9.

Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal Prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database SystRev 2003; (4):CD003101.

Church S, Vanmeter A, Whitfield R. Dinoprostone compared with misoprostol for cervical Ripening for Induction of labor at term. J Midwifery Women's Health 2009;54(5):405-411.

Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, IrionO. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of systematic Reviews. 2001; (4):CD001233.

Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Tomera S, Uccella S, Lischetti B, Bolis PF. Cervical ripening with the Foley catheter. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;97:105-9.

Daluri R, Suri V, Rag P, Gupta I. Comparison of extra amniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(4):362-7.

Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical Foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. JColl Physicians Surg Pak 2006;16(4):276-279.

Yazdani S, Javadian M, Bouzari Z, Ghanbari S. Intracervical Foley Catheter Balloon Versus Prostaglandin E2 in Preinduction Cervical Ripening. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2010; 20(79):56-61.

Taghinejad H, Mahaki B, Karimi S. A Study on Ripening of Cervix Using PG and Foley Catheter. Journal of Ilam University of medical sciences. 2008;16(1):14-9.

Vahid Roudsari F, Ghasemi M, Ayati S, Shakeri MT, Farshidi F, Shahabian M. Comparison of Vaginal Misoprostol with Foley Catheter for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor. Journal of Isfahan Medical School. 2010; 8(106):177-85.

Faraji D. effect of Foley catheter in preparation of Cervix for delivery. Journal of Gilan university of medical science 2001;10(39):83-8.

Niromanesh S, Mosavi-Jarrahi A, SamkhanianiF. Intracervvical Foley Catheter Balloon VS. Prostaglandin in preinduction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;81(1):23-7.

Al-Taani MI. Comparison of prostaglandinE2 tablets of Foley catheter for labour induction in grand multiparas. East Mediterr Health J. 2004;10(4-5):547-53.

Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical Foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. JColl Physicians Surg Pak. 2006;16(4):276-9.

Barrilleaux PS, Bofill J, Terrone D, MagannE, May W, Morrison J. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostonegel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1124-29.

Pennell C, Henderson J.O, Nneill M, MccleeryS, Doherty D, and Dickinson J. Induction of Labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomized controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009;116:1443-52.

Ghezzi F, Massimo F, Raio L, Di Naro E, Balestreri D, Bolis P. Catheter and prostaglandin E (2) gel for cervical ripening at term gestation. Eur J Obstet GynecolReprod Biol. 2001;97(2):183-70.