Double-balloon catheter vs dinoprostone (PGE-2) insert for labour induction: A meta-analysis of 2493 pregnancies

Amal M. Elhusein, Hammad A. Fadlalmola, Raga A. Ebrahim, Amani A. Mohammed, Salwa A. Mohmed, Sara E. Mohamed, Rym Hassani, Nagat S. Eltaher, Sitelbanat M. Ahmed, Rabab K. Mansour, Somia J. Farg, Hawa I. Hamid, Farida R. Shaaeldein, Nafesa H. Abbo, Shahenda A.A. Salih, Hamza H.A. Balola, Eltayeb A. Idress, Abdalla M. Osman, Suaad A.S. Omer, Wargaa H. Taha, Huda H. Abedelwahed


Induction of labor (IOL) is the stimulation of the uterus during pregnancy to begin the onset of labour. Nearly two of five pregnancies require IOL. We compared the effectiveness of double-balloon catheter (DBC) with dinoprostone (PGE-2) insert for labour induction from previous studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the safety and efficacy of DBC to PGE-2. To evaluate the studies, we utilized the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. The rates of vaginal birth and cesarean section were the primary outcomes. We included ten RCTs in this meta-analysis with a total sample of 2493 singleton pregnancies. After 24 hours, there was no significant difference in the delivery rates between DBC and PGE-2 s [R.R=1.08, 95% CI, (0.77, 1.52), P.value=0.65], and the rate of cesarean delivery [R.R=1.03, 95% CI, (0.90; 1.18), P.value=0.65]. The DBC showed a significantly higher oxytocin use rate compared to the PGE-2 group [R.R=1.77, 95% CI, (1.41; 2.32), P.value>0.0001]. In the PGE-2 group, there was a significantly higher risk of uterine hyperstimulation, tachysystole, and umbilical artery PH levels below 7. There was no significant difference in the efficacy between the PGE-2 and DBC in terms of delivery rate in 24 hours and the rate of cesarean delivery except for a slight BISHOP score improvement with DBC. However, DBC showed a higher rate of oxytocin use compared to the PGE-2, the DBC seems to be safer with a lower risk of umbilical artery PH < 7, uterine hyperstimulation, and tachysystole incidence than PGE-2. (Afr J Reprod Health 2023; 27 [4]: 84-95).

Full Text:



Vanneaux M, Forey P-L, Equy V, Hoffmann P and

Riethmuller D. Induction of labour: creation of a

classification of Grenoble allowing an assessment of

the evaluation of practices. BMC Pregnancy and

Childbirth 22 (2022).

Blanc-Petitjean P, Dupont C, Carbonne B, Salomé M,

Goffinet F, Ray CL, et al. Methods of induction of

labor and women’s experience: a population-based

cohort study with mediation analyses. BMC

Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2021;21(1)

Dunne C, Silva OD, Schmidt G and Natale R. Outcomes of

Elective Labour Induction and Elective Caesarean

Section in Low-risk Pregnancies Between 37 and 41

Weeks’ Gestation. Journal of Obstetrics and

Gynaecology Canada 31, 1124-1130 (2009).

Coates D, Makris A, Catling C, Henry A, Scarf V, Watts N,

Fox D, Thirukumar P, Wong V, Russell H and

Homer C. A systematic scoping review of clinical

indications for induction of labour. PLOS ONE 15,

e0228196 (2020).

Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K and

King V. Indications for induction of labour: a bestevidence review. BJOG: An International Journal of

Obstetrics & Gynaecology 116, 626-636



Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ and Dowswell T. Intravenous oxytocin

alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD003246 (2009).

Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton, N. J., Dias, S.,

Jones, L. V., Navaratnam, K.and Caldwell, D. M.

Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic

review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 350, h217-

h217 (2015).

Chen W, Xue J, Peprah M, Wen S, Walker M, Gao Y and

Tang Y. A systematic review and network metaanalysis comparing the use of Foley catheters,

misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening

in the induction of labour. BJOG: An International

Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 123, 346-



Di Mascio D, Villalain C, Rizzo G, Morales‐Rossello J, Sileo

FG, Maruotti GM, Prefumo F, Galindo A, D'Antonio

F, Di Mascio D, Villalain C, Buca D, Herraiz I, Rizzo

G, Morales‐Rossello J, Loscalzo G, Sileo FG,

Finarelli A, Bertucci E, Facchinetti F, Brunelli R,

Giancotti A, Muzii L, Maruotti GM, Carbone L,

Saccone G, D'Amico A, Tinari S, Cerra C, Prefumo

F, Nappi L, Greco P, Monaci R, Fichera A, Fratelli

N, Liberati M, Galindo A and D'Antonio F. Maternal

and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies complicated

by late fetal growth restriction undergoing induction

of labor with dinoprostone compared with cervical

balloon: A retrospective, international study. Acta

Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 100,

-1321 (2021).

Blanc‐Petitjean, P., Carbonne, B., Deneux‐Tharaux, C.,

Salomé, M., Goffinet, F.and Le Ray, C. Comparison

of effectiveness and safety of cervical ripening

methods for induction of labour: A population‐based

study using coarsened exact matching. Paediatric

and Perinatal Epidemiology 33, 313-322 (2019).

Shari G, Sciscione A. Mechanical Methods of Cervical

Ripening and Labor Induction. 49 (2006).

Solt I, Frank WM, Ben-Haroush S, Kaminskyi S, Ophir E

and Bornstein J. Foley catheter versus cervical

double balloon for labor induction: a prospective

randomized study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 34,

-1041 (2021).

Sciscione AC, McCullough H, Manley JS, Shlossman PA,

Pollock M and Colmorgen GHC. A prospective,

randomized comparison of Foley catheter insertion

versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for

preinduction cervical ripening. American Journal of

Obstetrics and Gynecology 180, 55-59 (1999).

Marroquin GA, Tudorica N, Salafia CM, Hecht R and

Mikhail M. Induction of labor at 41 weeks of

pregnancy among primiparas with an unfavorable

Bishop score. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, 989-993 (2013).

Konopka CK, Glanzner WG, Rigo ML, Rovani MT,

Comim FV, Gonçalves PBD, Morais EN, Antoniazzi

AQ, Mello CF and Cruz IBM. Responsivity to PGE2

labor induction involves concomitant differential

prostaglandin E receptor gene expression in cervix

and myometrium. Genetics and Molecular Research

, 10877-10887 (2015).

Bakker R, Pierce S and Myers D. The role of prostaglandins

E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical

ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic

approach. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, 167-179 (2017).

Abdelaziz A, Mahmoud AA, Ellaithy M I and Abees SH.

Pre-induction cervical ripening using two different

dinoprostone vaginal preparations: A randomized

clinical trial of tablets and slow release retrievable

insert. Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology

, 560-566 (2018).

Elhusein et al. Double-balloon catheter (DBC) vs dinoprostone (PGE-2)

African Journal of Reproductive Health April 2023; 27 (4):94

Kho EM, Sadler L and McCowan L. Induction of labour: A

comparison between controlled-release dinoprostone

vaginal pessary (Cervidil®) and dinoprostone

intravaginal gel (Prostin E2®). Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 48,

-477 (2008).


Jain J K and Mishell DR. A Comparison of Intravaginal

Misoprostol with Prostaglandin E2for

Termination of Second-Trimester Pregnancy. New

England Journal of Medicine 331, 290-293 (1994).

Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, Lang J, Ma L and Chen W. Efficacy and

safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus

intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at

term: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 40,

-906 (2014).

Liu, Y. R., Pu, C. X., Wang, X. Y.and Wang, X. Y. Doubleballoon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour

induction: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299,

-12 (2019).


Lauterbach R, Ben ZD, Dabaja H, Zidan R, Justman N,

Vitner D, Beloosesky R, Ghanem N, Ginsberg Y,

Zipori Y, Weiner Z and Khatib N. Vaginal

Dinoprostone Insert versus Cervical Ripening

Balloon for Term Induction of Labor in Obese

Nulliparas-A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin

Med 11 (2022).

Grace Ng YH, Aminuddin AA, Tan TL, Kuppusamy R,

Tagore S and Yeo GSH. 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. Arch Gynecol Obstet 305, 11-18 (2022).

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche

PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen

J and Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting

systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that

evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and

elaboration. BMJ 339, b2700 (2009).

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D,

Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne

JA, Cochrane Bias Methods G and Cochrane

Statistical Methods G. The Cochrane Collaboration's

tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

BMJ 343, d5928 (2011).

Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Agosti M, Serati M,

Marchitelli G and Bolis P. A randomized trial of

preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal

insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet

Gynecol 207, 125 e121-127 (2012).

Du C, Liu Y, Liu Y, Ding H, Zhang R and Tan J. Doubleballoon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for

induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Arch

Gynecol Obstet 291, 1221-1227 (2015).

Shechter-Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh-Mestechkin D, GanorPaz Y, Fejgin MD and Biron-Shental T. Intra-vaginal

prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for

labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol

, 95-98 (2015).

Suffecool K, Rosenn BM, Kam S, Mushi J, Foroutan J and

Herrera K. Labor induction in nulliparous women

with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter

versus dinoprostone. J Perinat Med 42, 213-218


Wang W, Zheng J, Fu J, Zhang X, Ma Q, Yu S, Li M and

Hou L. Which is the safer method of labor induction

for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double

balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert. J

Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27, 1805-1808 (2014).

Bhide A, Sedgwick P, Barrett B, Cupples G, Coates R,

Goode R, Linton S and McCourt C. Prostaglandin

insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon

catheter for outpatient labour induction: a

randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBITF). Pilot Feasibility Stud 6, 113 (2020).

Devillard E, Petillon F, Rouzaire M, Pereira B,

Accoceberry M, Houlle C, Dejou-Bouillet L,

Bouchet P, Delabaere A and Gallot D. Double

Balloon Catheter (Plus Oxytocin) versus

Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert for Term Rupture of

Membranes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

(RUBAPRO). J Clin Med 11 (2022).

Diguisto C, Le Gouge A, Arthuis C, Winer N, Parant O,

Poncelet C, Chauleur C, Hannigsberg J, Ducarme G,

Gallot D, Gabriel R, Desbriere R, Beucher G,

Faraguet C, Isly H, Rozenberg P, Giraudeau B,

Perrotin F and Groupe de Recherche en Obstetrique

et G. Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by

silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal

dinoprostone slow release system: The MAGPOP

randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 18, e1003448


Kho EM, Sadler L and McCowan L. Induction of labour: a

comparison between controlled-release dinoprostone

vaginal pessary (Cervidil) and dinoprostone

intravaginal gel (Prostin E2). The Australian & New

Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology 48,

-477 (2008).


Jain JK and Mishell DR Jr. A comparison of intravaginal

misoprostol with prostaglandin E2 for termination of

second-trimester pregnancy. The New England

journal of medicine 331, 290-293 (1994).

Atlas R O, Lemus J, Reed J, 3rd, Atkins D and Alger LS.

Second trimester abortion using prostaglandin E2

suppositories with or without intracervical Laminaria

japonica: a randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 92,

Elhusein et al. Double-balloon catheter (DBC) vs dinoprostone (PGE-2)

African Journal of Reproductive Health April 2023; 27 (4):95

-402 (1998).


Blanchette HA, Nayak S and Erasmus S. Comparison of the

safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol

(prostaglandin E1) with those of dinoprostone

(prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening and

induction of labor in a community hospital. Am J

Obstet Gynecol 180, 1551-1559 (1999).

Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N,

Dias S, Jones LV and Caldwell DM. Methods to

induce labour: a systematic review, network metaanalysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG : an

international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology

, 1462-1470 (2016).


  • There are currently no refbacks.