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.

Keywords: endocervical-balloon; Foley-catheter; labor-induction; prostaglandins