Méthodes pharmacologiques ou mécaniques pour la maturation cervicale : une revue de la littérature

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.gofs.2024.03.011
{"title":"Méthodes pharmacologiques ou mécaniques pour la maturation cervicale : une revue de la littérature","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.gofs.2024.03.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Induction of labor in France concerns one birth out of four with 70% of induction starting by cervical ripening, either with a pharmacological (prostaglandins) or a mechanical (balloon) method. This review aims to compare these two methods within current knowledge, using the PRISMA methodology.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets. Fifty articles including 10,689 women were selected. The outcomes of interest were those from the Core Outcome Set for trails on Induction of Labour (COSIOL) list: mode of delivery, time from induction-to-birth, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and maternal satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Result</h3><div>No differences were observed between the two methods for the mode of delivery or neonatal and maternal morbidity. The time from induction-to-birth was longer for mechanical methods. Those were also associated with a greater need for oxytocin, less uterine hyperstimulation and less instrumental deliveries. Maternal satisfaction was assessed in only nine trials using various scales which made the interpretation of maternal satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The efficacy of these two induction methods is similar for vaginal delivery, but it remains to be seen which one best meets women's satisfaction criteria.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56056,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","volume":"52 11","pages":"Pages 646-652"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468718924001156","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Induction of labor in France concerns one birth out of four with 70% of induction starting by cervical ripening, either with a pharmacological (prostaglandins) or a mechanical (balloon) method. This review aims to compare these two methods within current knowledge, using the PRISMA methodology.

Methods

Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets. Fifty articles including 10,689 women were selected. The outcomes of interest were those from the Core Outcome Set for trails on Induction of Labour (COSIOL) list: mode of delivery, time from induction-to-birth, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and maternal satisfaction.

Result

No differences were observed between the two methods for the mode of delivery or neonatal and maternal morbidity. The time from induction-to-birth was longer for mechanical methods. Those were also associated with a greater need for oxytocin, less uterine hyperstimulation and less instrumental deliveries. Maternal satisfaction was assessed in only nine trials using various scales which made the interpretation of maternal satisfaction.

Conclusion

The efficacy of these two induction methods is similar for vaginal delivery, but it remains to be seen which one best meets women's satisfaction criteria.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[用于宫颈成熟引产的前列腺素或宫颈球囊:文献综述]。
目的:在法国,每 4 个新生儿中就有 1 个需要引产,其中 70% 的引产是通过宫颈成熟术开始的,可以使用药物(前列腺素)或机械(气囊)方法。本综述旨在利用 PRISMA 方法,在现有知识范围内对这两种方法进行比较:方法:在 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆和 ClinicalTrial.govs 数据集中搜索了截至 2023 年 7 月已发表或未发表的这两种方法的法文或英文试验。共选取了 50 篇文章,其中包括 10 689 名妇女。关注的结果来自引产追踪核心结果集(COSIOL)列表:分娩方式、从引产到分娩的时间、产妇和新生儿发病率以及产妇满意度:结果:两种方法在分娩方式、新生儿和产妇发病率方面均无差异。机械法从引产到分娩的时间更长。机械助产法需要的催产素更多,子宫过度刺激更少,器械助产更少。只有九项试验使用不同的量表对产妇满意度进行了评估,这使得对产妇满意度的解释变得困难:这两种引产方法对阴道分娩的疗效相似,但哪种方法最符合产妇满意度标准还有待观察。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie est un mensuel scientifique d''information et de formation destiné aux gynécologues, aux obstétriciens, aux sénologues et aux biologistes de la reproduction. La revue, dans ses éditoriaux, articles originaux, mises au point, lettres à la rédaction et autres rubriques, donne une information actualisée ayant trait à l''obstétrique et à la gynécologie et aux différentes spécialités développées à partir de ces deux pôles : médecine de la reproduction, médecine maternelle et fœtale, périnatalité, endocrinologie, chirurgie gynécologique, cancérologie pelvienne, sénologie, sexualité, psychosomatique…
期刊最新文献
[Sexuality of the couple during pregnancy after assisted reproductive technology: a comparative study.] [The role of mammography in prevention of cardiovascular risk in women]. [Factors influencing pain during intrauterine device insertion]. [Reception of oocytes from partner (ROPA) in France: context and perspectives]. [Recommendations for clinical practice: Prevention and management of varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection during pregnancy and the perinatal period (extended version)].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1