On my OBGYN rotation, I have noticed two main tools used for the induction of cervical ripening: foley catheter balloon and Cervidil (Dinoprostone). I was curious about which method is more effective for labor induction. This article is a systematic review and meta-analysis, published in 2018 in Medicine (Baltimore) journal. Their objective was to “perform a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the intracervical Foley catheter and the dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening for successful labor induction”. They searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for related articles, with inclusion criteria of primigravida, singleton pregnancy, patients between 37 and 42 weeks, vertex presentation, Bishop score ≤3, intact membranes, use of intracervical foley catheter or Dinoprostone insert, outcome of cesarean delivery rate and induction-to-delivery interval. 8 studies fit the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1191 receiving Foley catheter balloon and 1199 receiving the Dinoprostone insert.

• • 19.5% of patients with Foley catheter balloon vs 21.4% receiving the Dinoprostone insert had received cesarean section. 
  • There was no statistically significant difference in both groups’ induction-to-delivery interval (after a random-effects model was used). Found that moderate balloon volume (30mL) and higher dose of Dinoprostone (>6mg) was related to shorter intervals.
  • 3/8 studies found Dinoprostone insert to be associated with shorter time to delivery, while 4/8 found Foley catheter balloon to be associated with shorter time to delivery. ⅛ found no difference between the two methods.
  • No difference was found in maternal complications (ie: post partum hemorrhage, maternal infection, uterine hyperstimulation) and fetal outcomes (ie: APGAR at 1 and 5 minutes)
  • Concluded that theres comparable efficacy with both methods.