Abstract
Pregnancy and childbirth care practices vary widely across countries, institutions, and different obstetrical care teams: in this context with such diverse practices, evidence-based clinical practice allows the Obstetric care is based on the best available evidence. The objective of the present study is to analyze the best available scientific evidence on the adverse effects of cervical balloon use during and after labor, compared to the use of endocervical prostaglandins for induction of labor in women with term pregnancy. The sequence of steps for the collection of information was initiated with the application of the search map in the databases MEDLINE, PUBMED and COCHRANE LIBRARY, based on the following information filter criteria: articles published between the years 2010 to 2015, Pregnant women of any age, only included studies such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyzes or guidelines of clinical practice and preferably scientific papers in English or Portuguese. This search and analysis of the evidence found was carried out during the months of April and May of the year 2015 by two reviewers. The results obtained for the critical analysis were carefully reviewed through the FCL 2.0 computer platform with the clinical trial templates and systematic review included in the annexes. It is concluded that the use of the endocervical balloon compared to the use of endocervical prostaglandins presents less adverse effects specifically during labor. In relation to the subsequent adverse effects, no greater difference is found between one or the other method.
References
Cunningham G. Obstetricia de Williams. 23a ed. México DF: Mc Graw Hill Interamericana; 2011. 1400 p.
Gonzales-Boubeta R, Cid-Gonzalez C. Maduración cervical: aceleración de un proceso natural. Matronas profesion [Internet]. 2007; 8(7):24-29. Disponible en: http://www.federacion-matronas.org/rs/236/d112d6ad-54ec-438b-9358-4483f9e98868/454
Ladewig PW, London ML, Morberly SM, Olds SB. Enfermería Maternal y del Recién Nacido. 5a ed.. Madrid: Mc Graw Hill Interamericana; 2006.
Muñoz I, Salas M. (2011). Cómo buscar (y encontrar) evidencia científica en salud: el planteamiento de la búsqueda. Nure Investigación [Internet].2011;(55). Disponible en: http://www.nureinvestigacion.es/OJS/index.php/nure/article/view/558/547
Alcolea M, Oter C, Martín A. Enfermería Basada en la Evidencia. Orígenes y fundamentos para una práctica enfermera basada en la Evidencia. Nure Investigación [Internet]. 2011; (52). Disponible en:http://www.nureinvestigacion.es/OJS/index.php/nure/article/view/538
Ramírez N, Paravic T. Enfermería basada en la evidencia, una ruta hacia la aplicación en la práctica profesional. Enfermería en Costa Rica [Internet]. 2011; 32(1): 89-96. Disponible en: http://www.binasss.sa.cr/revistas/enfermeria/v32n2/art7.pdf
Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. [Internet]. 2009; 116(11): 1442-1452. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19656148
Oliveira MV, Oberst PV, Leite GK, et al. Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. [Internet]. 2010; 32(7): 346-351. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-72032010000700007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
Cromi A, Ghezzi f, Agosti M, et al. (2011). Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol [Internet]. 2011; 204(4): 338-343. Disponible en http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293781002291X?via%3Dihub
Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, Klauser CK, Moshier E, Rebarber A. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG. [Internet]. 2010; 118(6): 647-654. Disponible en: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02905.x/abstract;jsessionid=0B1DBBF2665DE0BC58CA035EFF4B0B5C.f04t04
Jozwiak M, Oude K, Benthem M, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. [Internet]. 2011; 378(9808): 2095-2103. Displonible en: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61484-0/fulltext
Scribano A, De La Sena A. Las segundas partes sí pueden ser mejores: Algunas Reflexiones sobre el uso de datos secundarios en la investigación cualitativa. Sociologías. [Internet]. 2009; 11(22): 100-118. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=8681954800612
Alcolea M, Oter C, Martín A. Fases de la práctica clínica basada en la evidencia. Nure Investigación. 2011; (53)
Alcolea M, Oter C, Martín A. Planteamiento de la pregunta clínica. Cómo formular preguntas clínicas de manera adecuada. Nure Investigación. [Internet]. 2013; (54). Disponible en: http://www.nureinvestigacion.es/OJS/index.php/nure/article/view/545
González J, Buñuel J, Ochoa C. La valoración crítica de documentos científicos y su aplicabilidad a la práctica clínica: aspecto clave en la toma de decisiones basada en las mejores pruebas científicas. Evid Pediatr. [Internet]. 2006; 2: 37. Disponible en: http://www.evidenciasenpediatria.es/articulo/5047/la-valoracion-critica-de-documentos-cientificos-y-su-aplicabilidad-a-la-practica-clinica-aspecto-clave-en-la-toma-de-decisiones-basada-en-las-mejores-pruebas-cientificas
Cañón H. La Práctica Clínica basada en la Evidencia. Investigación en Enfermería: Imagen y Desarrollo. [Internet]. 2007; 9(2): 97-106. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1452/145212857002.pdf
Muñoz C, Munar J, González H, Lopez A. Actualización en el uso de uterotónicos. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. [Internet]. 2012; 59(2), 91-97. Disponible en: http://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-revista-espanola-anestesiologia-reanimacion-344-articulo-actualizacion-el-uso-uterotonicos-S0034935612000527
Cromi A1, Ghezzi F, Tomera S, Uccella S, Lischetti B, Bolis PF. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. [Internet]. 2012; 207(2): 125.e1-7 Disponible en: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937812005832?via%3Dihub
Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. [Internet]. 2010; 203(5), 418-429. Disponible en: http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)00492-8/fulltext
Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, et al.Foley catheter or prostaglandin E2 inserts for induction of labour at term: an open-label randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-P trial) and systematic review of literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. [Internet]. 2013;17(1): 137-45 Disponible en : http://www.ejog.org/article/S0301-2115(13)00277-7/fulltext