Management Strategies for Primary Gravida at Term with a Poor Bishop Score
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i4.1104Keywords:
Cervical Ripening, Bishop Score, Foley Catheter, Misoprostol, Labor Induction, Nulliparous, Mechanical Method, Pharmacological Method, Evidence-based PracticeAbstract
Induction of labor in term primary gravidas with a poor Bishop Score remains a clinical challenge, requiring effective cervical ripening strategies to optimize maternal and fetal outcomes. A variety of mechanical and pharmacological methods were employed, each with distinct mechanisms, benefits, and limitations. To evaluate and compare the effectiveness, safety, and clinical outcomes of mechanical versus pharmacological cervical ripening methods, and to explore how a multidisciplinary, evidence-based approach can enhance labor management in nulliparous women with unfavorable cervices. A prospective cohort study was conducted at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital the key outcomes assessed include rate of vaginal delivery, uterine hyperstimulation, cesarean section rates, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacological agents, especially misoprostol, demonstrate faster cervical ripening and shorter induction-to-delivery intervals but were associated with higher rates of uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods, particularly the Foley catheter, offer a safer profile with fewer complications, especially in women with prior uterine surgery, though they may be slower in action. The overall cesarean rates were comparable between the two methods. A combination of both methods often yields improved results. Both mechanical and pharmacological methods were effective for cervical ripening in term nulliparous women with a poor Bishop Score. The selection should be individualized, taking into account maternal history, institutional protocols, and resource availability. A multidisciplinary approach guided by evidence-based protocols can significantly enhance the safety, efficiency, and satisfaction associated with labor induction.
Downloads
References
Agrawal, A., Tripathi, P. S., Bhandari, G., Kheti, P., Madhpuriya, G., & Rathore, R. (2022). Comparative study of TVS cervical score and bishop score in prediction of successful labour induction. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 53(1), 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-022-00794-0
Alfirevic, Z., Keeney, E., Dowswell, T., Welton, N. J., Dias, S., Jones, L. V., Navaratnam, K., & Caldwell, D. M. (2015). Labour induction with prostaglandins: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ, 350(feb05 10), h217-h217. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h217
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2009). ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114(2 Pt 1), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181b48ef5
Anwar, W., Mujahid, N., Usman, F., Bhatti, S., & Abideen, Z. U. (2024). Comparative analysis of trans vaginal ultrasound and bishop score for successful prediction of induction of labor in term primigravidas. Pakistan Journal of Health Sciences, 41-46. https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v5i07.1720
Austin, S. C., Sanchez-Ramos, L., & Adair, C. D. (2010). Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: A systematic review and metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 202(6), 624.e1-624.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.03.014
Carbone, J. F., Tuuli, M. G., Fogertey, P. J., Roehl, K. A., & Macones, G. A. (2013). Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal Misoprostol compared with vaginal Misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 121(2), 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31827e5dca
Chen, Y., Wu, L., Zhang, W., Zou, L., Li, G., & Fan, L. (2015). Delivery modes and pregnancy outcomes of low birth weight infants in China. Journal of Perinatology, 36(1), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.137
Chung, J. H., Huang, W. H., Rumney, P. J., Garite, T. J., & Nageotte, M. P. (2003). A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol–Foley catheter for labor induction. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 189(4), 1031-1035. https://doi.org/10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00842-1
Danish, N., Fawad, A., & Abbasi, N. (2010). Assessment of pregnancy outcome in primigravida: comparison between booked and un-booked patients. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 22(2), 23-25. https://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/22-2/Nargis.pdf
de Miranda, (2007). Non-pharmacological methods of labour induction in primary care obstetrics: an overview. 23.
De Vaan, M. D., Ten Eikelder, M. L., Jozwiak, M., Palmer, K. R., Davies-Tuck, M., Bloemenkamp, K. W., Mol, B. W., & Boulvain, M. (2023). Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2023(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001233.pub4
Du, Y., Zhu, L., Cui, L., Jin, B., & Ou, J. (2018). Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest, 38(1), 40-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aoa.0000530004.45603.4b
Eke, A. C., Sheffield, J. S., & de Los Reyes, S. X. (2024). Comparison of misoprostol with Foley catheter versus misoprostol alone for labor induction in pregnancies with premature rupture of membranes: A randomized controlled trial. Advanced Biomedical Research, 13(2).
Grace Ng, Y. H., Aminuddin, A. A., Tan, T. L., Kuppusamy, R., Tagore, S., & Yeo, G. S. H. (2022). Multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the safety in the first 12 h, efficacy and maternal satisfaction of a double balloon catheter and prostaglandin pessary for induction of labour. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06090-y
Hill, J., Thigpen, B., Bofill, J., Magann, E., Moore, L., & Martin, J. (2008). A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal Misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. American Journal of Perinatology, 26(01), 033-038. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1091396
Jóźwiak, W., Domańska, D., & Markowski, P. (2012). The significance of innovation in rural development: A case study of Poland. Studia Regionalia, 33, 115–129.
Kansu-Celik, H., Gun-Eryılmaz, O., Dogan, N. U., Haktankaçmaz, S., Cinar, M., Yilmaz, S. S., & Gülerman, C. (2017). Prostaglandin E2 induction of labor and cervical ripening for term isolated oligohydramnios in pregnant women with bishop score ≤ 5. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 80(3), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2016.07.004
Liu, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, F., Zhong, X., Ou, R., Luo, X., & Qi, H. (2019). Double-versus single-balloon catheters for labour induction and cervical ripening: a meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2491-4
Metz, T. D., Stoddard, G. J., Henry, E., Jackson, M., Holmgren, C., & Esplin, S. (2013). How do good candidates for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) who undergo elective repeat cesarean differ from those who choose TOLAC? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 208(6), 458.e1-458.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.011
Nasioudis, D., Kim, S. W., Schoen, C., & Levine, L. D. (2019). Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, 1(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.06.003
Orhue, A. (1995). Induction of labour at term in primigravidae with low bishop's score: A comparison of three methods. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 58(2), 119-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(94)01963-0
Salim, R., Schwartz, N., Zafran, N., Zuarez-Easton, S., Garmi, G., & Romano, S. (2017). Comparison of single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Perinatology, 38(3), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-017-0005-7
Salim, R., Zafran, N., Nachum, Z., Garmi, G., Kraiem, N., & Shalev, E. (2011). Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 118(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e318220e4b7
Sanchez-Ramos, L., Levine, L. D., Sciscione, A. C., Mozurkewich, E. L., Ramsey, P. S., Adair, C. D., ... & McKinney, J. A. (2024). Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 230(3), S669-S695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009
SANCHEZRAMOS, L., KAUNITZ, A., WEARS, R., DELKE, I., & GAUDIER, F. (1997). Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: A meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 89(4), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(96)00374-2
Ten Eikelder, M. L., Oude Rengerink, K., Jozwiak, M., De Leeuw, J. W., de Graaf, I. M., Van Pampus, M. G., Holswilder, M., Oudijk, M. A., Van Baaren, G., Pernet, P. J., Bax, C., Van Unnik, G. A., Martens, G., Porath, M., Van Vliet, H., Rijnders, R. J., Feitsma, A. H., Roumen, F. J., Van Loon, A. J., … Bloemenkamp, K. W. (2016). Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): A multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. The Lancet, 387(10028), 1619-1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00084-2
World Health Organization. (2018). WHO recommendations: Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
