Search

Background: Outpatient term preinduction cervical ripening with mechanical agents has been associated with reduced length of stay, decreased cesarean delivery rates, low maternal and neonatal complications, and increased incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 hours., Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate equivalent efficacy between synthetic hygroscopic dilators and the single-balloon catheter for outpatient cervical ripening., Study Design: This randomized control equivalence trial compared synthetic hygroscopic dilators with the 30-mL silicone single-balloon catheter in primiparous and multiparous patients undergoing labor induction. The primary outcome was time from admission to delivery, with a prespecified 3-hour margin of equivalence. The secondary objectives were patient outcomes and perspectives., Results: Between March 1, 2019, and May 31, 2021, 1605 patients met the screening criteria, and 174 patients completed the study. The mean admission-to-delivery time was equivalent at 18.01 hours for the dilator group vs 17.55 hours for the balloon group (P=.04). The cesarean delivery rate of primiparous patients was similar at 28.1% with dilators vs 29.7% with the balloon. The groups had similar median cervical dilation and pain scores on insertion and admission. Overall patient satisfaction was high, 92.8% with dilators vs 96.2% with the balloon. The balloon group had significantly higher rates of early admission and device expulsion., Conclusion: Although the enrollment goal was not met, our study suggests that synthetic hygroscopic dilators and the single-balloon catheter for outpatient cervical ripening are both efficacious with similar time from admission to delivery, pain scores, and patient satisfaction with the procedure., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Study Objective: To determine whether surgical management of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is associated with social vulnerability index (SVI)., Design: A retrospective cohort., Setting: A total of 7 hospitals and 4 ambulatory surgery centers within a large New York health system., Patients: All patients between 15 and 45 years of age who underwent either a hysterectomy or myomectomy for AUB between January 2019 and October 2021., Interventions: None. Home addresses were linked to census tracts and SVI scores. SVI is composed of 4 themes that potentially influence a community's vulnerability to health stressors: socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between SVI and surgical procedure/approach, adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, marital status, insurance, language, body mass index, and previous abdominal surgery., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1628 patients were included. On performing regression analysis between SVI quarters and type of surgery, the odds of undergoing laparotomy for the hysterectomy group were not affected by SVI composite score both before and after adjusting for alternative factors (odds ratio [OR] and adjusted OR). Among those who had a myomectomy, individuals in SVI Q3 had 1.86 times (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.72) higher odds of having a laparotomy than those in SVI Q1. Individuals in SVI Q4 had 1.74 times (95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.62) higher odds of having a laparotomy than those in SVI Q1. Although some unadjusted ORs were statistically significant in the myomectomy group, when adjusted for social, demographic, and economic factors, the results were not statistically significant., Conclusion: Patients living in more vulnerable communities are less likely to have minimally invasive hysterectomy or myomectomy for the management of AUB. Neighborhood characteristics are independently associated with surgical procedure and approach., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)