Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:


Subscribers log in here


Techniques for ripening the unfavorable cervix prior to induction

INTRODUCTION

Cervical status is a good predictor of the likelihood of vaginal delivery when labor is induced. Any induction method is likely to be effective in a woman with a favorable cervix, whereas no method is highly successful when performed in a woman with a cervix that is unfavorable (ie, firm, posterior, and neither dilated nor effaced). Therefore, if the cervix is unfavorable, a ripening process is generally employed prior to induction.

Cervical ripening is a complex process that results in physical softening and distensibility of the cervix, ultimately leading to partial cervical effacement and dilatation [1-3]. Remodeling of the cervix involves enzymatic dissolution of collagen fibrils, increase in water content, and chemical changes (figure 1). These changes are induced by hormones (estrogen, progesterone, relaxin), as well as cytokines, prostaglandins, and nitric oxide synthesis enzymes.

The two major techniques for iatrogenic cervical ripening are (1) mechanical (physical) interventions, such as insertion of catheters or cervical dilators, and (2) application of cervical ripening agents, such as prostaglandins. These techniques will be reviewed below. General issues regarding induction of labor and use of oxytocin are discussed separately. (See "Induction of labor".)

BISHOP SCORE

The Bishop score is a quantitative means of describing cervical status prior to induction (table 1). Although thresholds vary among studies, there is general agreement that a score >8 indicates a favorable cervix (ie, the probability of vaginal delivery is the same whether labor is spontaneous or induced), while a score ≤6 generally defines an unfavorable cervix (ie, the probability of vaginal delivery is lower if labor is induced) [4].

LIMITATIONS OF AVAILABLE DATA

Interpretation of available data on cervical ripening is hindered by several factors, which make it difficult to determine the methods of cervical ripening and labor induction, either used alone or in combination, that are most effective. These factors include:

                                  

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Jun 2014. | This topic last updated: Apr 4, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Maul H, Mackay L, Garfield RE. Cervical ripening: biochemical, molecular, and clinical considerations. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49:551.
  2. Word RA, Li XH, Hnat M, Carrick K. Dynamics of cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: mechanisms and current concepts. Semin Reprod Med 2007; 25:69.
  3. Timmons BC, Mahendroo M. Processes regulating cervical ripening differ from cervical dilation and postpartum repair: insights from gene expression studies. Reprod Sci 2007; 14:53.
  4. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins -- Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114:386.
  5. Keirse MJ. Natural prostaglandins for induction of labor and preinduction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49:609.
  6. Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:418.
  7. Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 140:897.
  8. Kelly AJ, Malik S, Smith L, et al. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; :CD003101.
  9. Keirse MJ. Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripening. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience. J Reprod Med 1993; 38:89.
  10. Prins RP, Neilson DR Jr, Bolton RN, et al. Preinduction cervical ripening with sequential use of prostaglandin E2 gel. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154:1275.
  11. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD006971.
  12. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:3.
  13. Motaze NV, Mbuagbaw L, Young T. Prostaglandins before caesarean section for preventing neonatal respiratory distress. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 11:CD010087.
  14. Williams MC, Tsibris JC, Davis G, et al. Dose variation that is associated with approximated one-quarter tablet doses of misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187:615.
  15. Khan RU, El-Refaey H, Sharma S, et al. Oral, rectal, and vaginal pharmacokinetics of misoprostol. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:866.
  16. Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; :CD001338.
  17. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD000941.
  18. Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202:624.e1.
  19. Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118:647.
  20. Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD004221.
  21. Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:612.
  22. Farah LA, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rosa C, et al. Randomized trial of two doses of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:364.
  23. Wing DA. Labor induction with misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:339.
  24. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, et al. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89:633.
  25. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I. Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:145.
  26. Calder AA, Loughney AD, Weir CJ, Barber JW. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. BJOG 2008; 115:1279.
  27. Tan TC, Yan SY, Chua TM, et al. A randomised controlled trial of low-dose misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal pessaries for cervical priming. BJOG 2010; 117:1270.
  28. Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, de Souza JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013; 121:186.
  29. Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122:201.
  30. Wing DA, Park MR, Paul RH. A randomized comparison of oral and intravaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95:905.
  31. Kundodyiwa TW, Alfirevic Z, Weeks AD. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113:374.
  32. Hofmeyr GJ, Alfirevic Z, Matonhodze B, et al. Titrated oral misoprostol solution for induction of labour: a multi-centre, randomised trial. BJOG 2001; 108:952.
  33. Dällenbach P, Boulvain M, Viardot C, Irion O. Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188:162.
  34. Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:332.
  35. Wolf SB, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sublingual misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:365.
  36. Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, et al. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002; 109:645.
  37. Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:72.
  38. Souza AS, Amorim MM, Feitosa FE. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG 2008; 115:1340.
  39. Smith CV, Rayburn WF, Miller AM. Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and initiation of labor. Comparison of a multidose gel and single, controlled-release pessary. J Reprod Med 1994; 39:381.
  40. Witter FR, Rocco LE, Johnson TR. A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:830.
  41. Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:177.
  42. Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, et al. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG 2009; 116:1443.
  43. Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, et al. Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118:79.
  44. Levy R, Kanengiser B, Furman B, et al. A randomized trial comparing a 30-mL and an 80-mL Foley catheter balloon for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:1632.
  45. Delaney S, Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, et al. Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:1239.
  46. Gibson KS, Mercer BM, Louis JM. Inner thigh taping vs traction for cervical ripening with a Foley catheter: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:272.e1.
  47. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Agosti M, et al. Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204:338.e1.
  48. Gelber S, Sciscione A. Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49:642.
  49. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3:CD001233.
  50. Pettker CM, Pocock SB, Smok DP, et al. Transcervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111:1320.
  51. Lyndrup J, Nickelsen C, Weber T, et al. Induction of labour by balloon catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion (BCEAS): a randomised comparison with PGE2 vaginal pessaries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 53:189.
  52. Vengalil SR, Guinn DA, Olabi NF, et al. A randomized trial of misoprostol and extra-amniotic saline infusion for cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91:774.
  53. Yuen PM, Pang HY, Chung T, Chang A. Cervical ripening before induction of labour in patients with an unfavourable cervix: a comparative randomized study of the Atad Ripener Device, prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessary, and prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 36:291.
  54. Atad J, Hallak M, Ben-David Y, et al. Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:29.
  55. Guinn DA, Davies JK, Jones RO, et al. Labor induction in women with an unfavorable Bishop score: randomized controlled trial of intrauterine Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin infusion versus Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion with concurrent oxytocin infusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:225.
  56. Karjane NW, Brock EL, Walsh SW. Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:234.
  57. Lin MG, Reid KJ, Treaster MR, et al. Transcervical Foley catheter with and without extraamniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:558.
  58. Gilson GJ, Russell DJ, Izquierdo LA, et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of a hygroscopic cervical dilator, Dilapan, in the preinduction ripening of patients undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175:145.
  59. Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Vanaja K, Ratnam SS. Preinduction cervical ripening: prostaglandin E2 gel vs hygroscopic mechanical dilator. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997; 23:171.
  60. Krammer J, Williams MC, Sawai SK, O'Brien WF. Pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of two methods. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85:614.
  61. Weiss G, Teichman S, Stewart D, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of relaxin for cervical ripening in post-delivery date pregnancies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1160:385.
  62. Bell RJ, Permezel M, MacLennan A, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the safety of vaginal recombinant human relaxin for cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82:328.
  63. Brennand JE, Calder AA, Leitch CR, et al. Recombinant human relaxin as a cervical ripening agent. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:775.
  64. Frydman R, Lelaidier C, Baton-Saint-Mleux C, et al. Labor induction in women at term with mifepristone (RU 486): a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80:972.
  65. Giacalone PL, Targosz V, Laffargue F, et al. Cervical ripening with mifepristone before labor induction: a randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:487.
  66. Wing DA, Fassett MJ, Mishell DR. Mifepristone for preinduction cervical ripening beyond 41 weeks' gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96:543.
  67. Stenlund PM, Ekman G, Aedo AR, Bygdeman M. Induction of labor with mifepristone--a randomized, double-blind study versus placebo. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78:793.
  68. Elliott CL, Brennand JE, Calder AA. The effects of mifepristone on cervical ripening and labor induction in primigravidae. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:804.
  69. Su H, Li E, Weng L. [Mifepristone for induction of labor]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 1996; 31:676.
  70. Lelaidier C, Baton C, Benifla JL, et al. Mifepristone for labour induction after previous caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101:501.
  71. Berkane N, Verstraete L, Uzan S, et al. Use of mifepristone to ripen the cervix and induce labor in term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192:114.
  72. Wing DA, Guberman C, Fassett M. A randomized comparison of oral mifepristone to intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with prelabor rupture of membranes beyond 36 weeks' gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192:445.
  73. Kelly AJ, Munson C, Minden L. Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; :CD006901.
  74. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Hyaluronidase for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; :CD003097.
  75. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Corticosteroids for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; :CD003100.
  76. Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 7:CD003099.
  77. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Sexual intercourse for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; :CD003093.
  78. Omar NS, Tan PC, Sabir N, et al. Coitus to expedite the onset of labour: a randomised trial. BJOG 2013; 120:338.
  79. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Breast stimulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD003392.
  80. McFarlin BL, Gibson MH, O'Rear J, Harman P. A national survey of herbal preparation use by nurse-midwives for labor stimulation. Review of the literature and recommendations for practice. J Nurse Midwifery 1999; 44:205.
  81. Dowswell T, Kelly AJ, Livio S, et al. Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD007701.
  82. Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Ghosh A. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 11:CD007372.