<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>1646-5830</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Acta Obstétrica e Ginecológica Portuguesa]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Acta Obstet Ginecol Port]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>1646-5830</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Euromédice, Edições Médicas Lda.]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S1646-58302017000200004</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Maturação cervical com Sonda de Foley: experiência de um centro terciário]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Cervical ripening with Foley catheter: a tertiary center experience]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Marujo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ana Teresa]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rosado]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Vanessa]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Correia]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Lúcia]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Machado]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ana Isabel]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Campos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ana]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="AA1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Maternidade Dr. Alfredo da Costa  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[ ]]></addr-line>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>11</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<fpage>84</fpage>
<lpage>90</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S1646-58302017000200004&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S1646-58302017000200004&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S1646-58302017000200004&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Overview and Aims: In the presence of an unfavorable cervix, pre-induction cervical ripening is an important part of the labour induction process. Both mechanical and pharmacological methods are available for this purpose, with Foley catheter being the most commonly used mechanical method. We intend to describe the efficacy of Foley catheter for cervical ripening and to describe maternal and neonatal outcomes. Furthermore, we analyze the same results in high risk subgroups. Study Design: Retrospective observational study Population: 44 women with a singleton pregnancy, live fetus, cephalic presentation, intact membranes, with medical indication for labour induction and Bishop score &#8804;6. Methods: Medical records were reviewed and analyzed. Foley catheter was introduced until expulsion or for a maximum of 24 hours. Cervical ripening was considered effective when Bishop score after catheter was &#8805;8. Maternal outcomes considered were tachysystole, chorioamnionitis, post-partum bleeding and uterine rupture. Neonatal outcomes assessed were Apgar score, need for hospitalization in neonatal care unit and days of hospitalization. In the subgroup analysis, we divided the risk population in two subgroups: Group 1- Fetal growth restriction and/or oligohydramnios; Group 2- Previous caesarean section. Results: 72.7% of the labour inductions were indicated by maternal or fetal disease. The efficacy of cervical ripening was 65.9% and vaginal delivery rate was 63.6%. Regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes, there were only two cases (4.5%) of clinical chorioamnionitis. In subgroup analysis, the efficacy of cervical ripening and vaginal delivery rates were, respectively, 60.9% and 69.6% in Group 1 and 72.2% and 50% in Group 2.There was one case of chorioamnionitis in each subgroup. Conclusions: Foley catheter is an effective and safe method for cervical ripening. Due to its low association with adverse outcomes, it appears to be a good alternative for high-risk populations]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Labour induction]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Cervical ripening]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Foley catheter]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><body><![CDATA[ <p align="right"><font size="2"><b>ESTUDO   ORIGINAL/</B>ORIGINAL   STUDY</font></p>     <p><font size="4"><b>Matura&#231;&#227;o   cervical com Sonda de Foley: experi&#234;ncia de um centro terci&#225;rio</b></font></p>     <p><font size="3"><b>Cervical   ripening with Foley catheter: a tertiary center experience</b></font></p>     <p><b>Ana Teresa Marujo*,   Vanessa Rosado*, L&#250;cia Correia*, Ana Isabel Machado*, Ana Campos*</b></p>     <p>Maternidade Dr.   Alfredo da Costa</p>     <p>*Especialista   em Ginecologia e Obstetr&#237;cia</p>     <p><a href="#c0">Endere&ccedil;o para correspond&ecirc;ncia</a> | <a href="#c0">Direcci&oacute;n para correspondencia</a> | <a href="#c0">Correspondence</a><a name="topc0"></a></p> <hr/>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p>     <p><b>Overview and Aims:</b> In the presence of an   unfavorable cervix, pre-induction cervical ripening is an important part of the   labour induction process. Both mechanical and pharmacological methods are   available for this purpose, with Foley catheter being the most commonly used   mechanical method. We intend to describe the efficacy of Foley catheter for   cervical ripening and to describe maternal and neonatal outcomes. Furthermore,   we analyze the same results in high risk subgroups.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><b>Study Design: </b>Retrospective observational   study</p>     <p><b>Population: </b>44 women with a singleton   pregnancy, live fetus, cephalic presentation, intact membranes, with medical   indication for labour induction and Bishop score &#8804;6.</p>     <p><b>Methods: </b>Medical records were reviewed and   analyzed. Foley catheter was introduced until expulsion or for a maximum of 24   hours. Cervical ripening was considered effective when Bishop score after   catheter was &#8805;8. Maternal outcomes considered were tachysystole,   chorioamnionitis, post-partum bleeding and uterine rupture. Neonatal outcomes   assessed were Apgar score, need for hospitalization in neonatal care unit and   days of hospitalization. In the subgroup analysis, we divided the risk population   in two subgroups: Group 1- Fetal growth restriction and/or oligohydramnios;   Group 2- Previous caesarean section.</p>     <p><b>Results: </b>72.7% of the labour inductions were   indicated by maternal or fetal disease. The efficacy of cervical ripening was   65.9% and vaginal delivery rate was 63.6%. Regarding maternal and neonatal   outcomes, there were only two cases (4.5%) of clinical chorioamnionitis. In   subgroup analysis, the efficacy of cervical ripening and vaginal delivery rates   were, respectively, 60.9% and 69.6% in Group 1 and 72.2% and 50% in Group   2.There was one case of chorioamnionitis in each subgroup.</p>     <p><b>Conclusions: </b>Foley catheter is an   effective and safe method for cervical ripening. Due to its low association   with adverse outcomes, it appears to be a good alternative for high-risk   populations.</p>     <p><b>Keywords: </b>Labour induction; Cervical ripening; Foley catheter.</p> <hr/>     <p>&nbsp;</p>    <p><b>Introdu&#231;&#227;o</b></p>     <p>A   indu&#231;&#227;o do trabalho de parto (ITP) &#233; o processo artificial de inicia&#231;&#227;o do   trabalho de parto e est&#225; indicada quando os riscos maternos e/ou fetais de   prolongamento da gravidez ultrapassam os riscos da ITP e nascimento<sup>1-3</sup>.</p>     <p>Com   o aumento das taxas de ITP verificado nas &#250;ltimas d&#233;cadas<sup>3,4</sup>, e   associando-se esta interven&#231;&#227;o a maior risco de parto por cesariana, torna-se   essencial a correta avalia&#231;&#227;o das caracter&#237;sticas cervicais, traduzidas no   &#237;ndice de Bishop (IB), e dos m&#233;todos de indu&#231;&#227;o dispon&#237;veis<sup>5,6</sup>.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>Globalmente,   considera-se que quando o IB &#233; &#8805; 8, o colo apresenta caracter&#237;sticas   favor&#225;veis, sendo a probabilidade de parto vaginal igual &#224; existente com o   in&#237;cio de trabalho de parto espont&#226;neo. Por outro lado, um IB &#8804; 6 traduz   um colo imaturo, com maior risco de falha de ITP<sup>3</sup>, estando por isso   recomendada a matura&#231;&#227;o cervical (MC) com recurso a m&#233;todos farmacol&#243;gicos ou   mec&#226;nicos<sup>1,2,7,8</sup>. Dos diferentes m&#233;todos mec&#226;nicos descritos, a   sonda de Foley &#233; o mais amplamente estudado e utilizado, sendo atualmente   reconhecido como um m&#233;todo eficaz e seguro, com taxas de sucesso semelhantes   aos m&#233;todos farmacol&#243;gicos utilizados com o mesmo objetivo<sup> 7-12</sup>.</p>     <p>De   entre as v&#225;rias vantagens associadas a este m&#233;todo (baixo custo, estabilidade &#224;   temperatura ambiente, boa aceita&#231;&#227;o pela gr&#225;vida, reduzida taxa de efeitos   secund&#225;rios), destaca-se a sua menor associa&#231;&#227;o a taquissistolia e,   consequentemente, menor risco de hip&#243;xia fetal e estado fetal n&#227;o   tranquilizador (EFNT) intra-parto<sup>1,3,13,14</sup>. Esta vantagem pode ser   especialmente importante em popula&#231;&#245;es com maior risco para este evento   adverso, como &#233; o caso da gravidez complicada de restri&#231;&#227;o do crescimento fetal   (RCF)<sup>14,15</sup> e/ou oligo&#226;mnios<sup>16</sup>, ou de gr&#225;vidas com risco   aumentado de rotura uterina, como aquelas com antecedentes de parto por   cesariana<sup>3,4,17</sup>.</p>     <p>Com   este trabalho os autores pretendem avaliar a efic&#225;cia da sonda de Foley na MC   bem como os desfechos maternos e neonatais com a utiliza&#231;&#227;o deste m&#233;todo. Tendo   em conta a elevada percentagem de gravidezes de alto risco seguidas na nossa   institui&#231;&#227;o, estabeleceu-se como objetivo secund&#225;rio a suban&#225;lise dos   resultados por subgrupos de risco (RCF e/ou oligo&#226;mnios e antecedentes de parto   por cesariana).</p>     <p><b>M&#233;todos </b></p>     <p>Realiz&#225;mos   um estudo descritivo retrospetivo de todos os casos de MC no contexto de ITP   realizadas com sonda de Foley, no per&#237;odo compreendido entre 1 de julho de 2014   e 30 de agosto de 2015 (14 meses), num centro terci&#225;rio de apoio perinatal   diferenciado, com uma m&#233;dia anual de 4000 partos, 60% dos quais em gravidezes de   alto risco. </p>     <p>Foram   inclu&#237;das gravidezes unifetais de fetos vivos, em apresenta&#231;&#227;o cef&#225;lica,   membranas amni&#243;ticas intactas, com indica&#231;&#227;o materna ou fetal para ITP e com   colo desfavor&#225;vel (IB&#8804;6). Consider&#225;mos crit&#233;rios de exclus&#227;o a gravidez   m&#250;ltipla, antecedentes de mais de uma cesariana, presen&#231;a de hemorragia vaginal   ativa, corioamnionite, placenta baixamente inserida ou outra contraindica&#231;&#227;o   para parto vaginal.</p>     <p>Para   avalia&#231;&#227;o dos resultados obtidos com a utiliza&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley,   consider&#225;mos MC eficaz quando as altera&#231;&#245;es cervicais ap&#243;s a exterioriza&#231;&#227;o da   sonda conferiam uma reclassifica&#231;&#227;o do IB para &#8805; 8. Definimos ITP falhada   quando a utiliza&#231;&#227;o dos m&#233;todos de indu&#231;&#227;o aplicados n&#227;o permitiu a entrada em   fase ativa do trabalho de parto, definida como presen&#231;a de contractilidade   regular e dilata&#231;&#227;o cervical &#8805;3 cm. Como protocolos de indu&#231;&#227;o foram   utilizados: Misoprostol: 50&#956;g no fundo de saco posterior a cada 6 horas,   m&#225;ximo 6 administra&#231;&#245;es; Ocitocina: 10UI em 1000cc de soro fisiol&#243;gico, a   iniciar a 15 ml, com possibilidade de aumento de 15 ml a cada 30 minutos at&#233;   atingir 3-5 contra&#231;&#245;es a cada 10 minutos, at&#233; um m&#225;ximo de 120 ml/h; Pess&#225;rio   de dinoprostona: aplica&#231;&#227;o no fundo de saco posterior, at&#233; um m&#225;ximo de 24   horas.</p>     <p>Para   avalia&#231;&#227;o dos desfechos adversos maternos consider&#225;mos a exist&#234;ncia de   taquissistolia (definida como a ocorr&#234;ncia de mais de 5 contra&#231;&#245;es em 10   minutos, num registo de 30 minutos), rotura uterina, corioamnionite (definida   com base em crit&#233;rios cl&#237;nicos, nomeadamente pela presen&#231;a de febre intra-parto   (temperatura axilar &#8805; 38&#186;C) associada a, pelo menos, 2 dos seguintes   crit&#233;rios: taquicardia materna &gt;100 bpm, taquicardia fetal &gt;160 bpm, dor   &#224; palpa&#231;&#227;o uterina, l&#237;quido amni&#243;tico com cheiro f&#233;tido , leucocitose   &gt;15.000 ou Proteina C reactiva aumentada) e hemorragia p&#243;s parto ( definida   como perda hem&#225;tica significativa com repercuss&#227;o cl&#237;nica e /ou laboratorial   (diminui&#231;&#227;o 10% hemat&#243;crito)). Os desfechos neonatais foram avaliados atrav&#233;s   do &#237;ndice de Apgar (IA) ao 5&#186; minuto &lt;7, da necessidade de internamento na   unidade de cuidados neonatais e do n&#250;mero de dias de internamento.</p>     <p>Ap&#243;s   avalia&#231;&#227;o das caracter&#237;sticas da amostra, analis&#225;mos a taxa de efic&#225;cia do   m&#233;todo, a taxa de parto vaginal e a ocorr&#234;ncia de desfechos adversos maternos e   neonatais em fun&#231;&#227;o de subpopula&#231;&#245;es de risco: Grupo 1(G1) - gravidezes   complicadas de situa&#231;&#245;es que diminuem a toler&#226;ncia do feto ao TP: RCF e/ou   oligo&#226;mnios e Grupo 2 (G2) - gravidezes com maior risco de rotura uterina ap&#243;s   ITP: gr&#225;vidas com antecedente de parto por cesariana. Definimos RCF como fetos   com estimativa de peso &lt;P10 para a idade gestacional (IG) e oligo&#226;mnios como   &#237;ndice de l&#237;quido amni&#243;tico (ILA) inferior a 5cm ou medida vertical da maior   bolsa inferior a 2cm.</p>     <p>De   acordo com o protocolo institucional, o in&#237;cio da indu&#231;&#227;o da MC foi precedido   da avalia&#231;&#227;o do bem-estar fetal por registo cardiotocogr&#225;fico classificado de   acordo com a classifica&#231;&#227;o do <i>American College of Obstetricians and     Gynecologists</i><sup>18</sup> (ACOG) complementado, quando indicado, com   perfil biof&#237;sico. Foi realizada a avalia&#231;&#227;o digital do colo uterino e   registadas as suas caracter&#237;sticas atrav&#233;s do c&#225;lculo do IB. A inser&#231;&#227;o   intracervical da sonda de Foley foi feita em regime de internamento, atrav&#233;s do   exame com esp&#233;culo: Ap&#243;s visualiza&#231;&#227;o direta do colo uterino, a sonda foi   introduzida at&#233; ultrapassar o orif&#237;cio cervical interno (OCI) e o bal&#227;o   insuflado com 30-60cc de soro fisiol&#243;gico, de acordo com as caracter&#237;sticas   cervicais. Foi efetuada tra&#231;&#227;o da sonda at&#233; que o bal&#227;o ficasse sobre o OCI e a   extremidade livre foi fixada &#224; face interna da coxa da gr&#225;vida. Uma nova tra&#231;&#227;o   da sonda era realizada a cada 8 horas ou na presen&#231;a de queixas que motivassem   a avalia&#231;&#227;o cervical. Nos casos em que n&#227;o ocorreu expuls&#227;o espont&#226;nea da   sonda, esta foi removida 24 horas ap&#243;s a sua coloca&#231;&#227;o. A avalia&#231;&#227;o do   bem-estar fetal foi realizada a cada 8 horas, atrav&#233;s de registo   cardiotocogr&#225;fico.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>De   acordo com o protocolo do Servi&#231;o, nos casos em que o rastreio da coloniza&#231;&#227;o a <i>Streptococcus agalactiae</i> do Grupo B era positivo, a antibioterapia   profil&#225;tica foi institu&#237;da no in&#237;cio da fase ativa do trabalho de parto ou   quando ocorreu rotura da bolsa amni&#243;tica.</p>     <p>Ap&#243;s   exterioriza&#231;&#227;o do bal&#227;o, procedeu-se &#224; reclassifica&#231;&#227;o do IB para decis&#227;o do   m&#233;todo de indu&#231;&#227;o a prosseguir. Quando o IB era &lt;8, era continuada MC com os   m&#233;todos farmacol&#243;gicos acima descritos ou, se havia contraindica&#231;&#227;o para   prostaglandinas, era iniciada perfus&#227;o ocit&#243;cica. Nos casos em que o IB era   &#8805; 8, iniciava-se ITP com perfus&#227;o ocit&#243;cica, de acordo com o protocolo do   Servi&#231;o.</p>     <p>Os   dados foram obtidos atrav&#233;s da consulta dos processos cl&#237;nicos e utilizado o <i>software</i> SPSS&#174; 16.0 para an&#225;lise estat&#237;stica. </p>     <p><b>Resultados</b></p>     <p>No   per&#237;odo de tempo em que decorreu o estudo ocorreram 4175 partos na nossa   institui&#231;&#227;o, sendo que 807 (19,3%) destes partos foram precedidos de ITP. A MC   com sonda de Foley foi realizada em 44 mulheres.</p>     <p>As   caracter&#237;sticas demogr&#225;ficas da amostra estudada encontram-se resumidas no   <a href="#q1">Quadro I</a>.</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>    <p align="center"><a name="q1"></a><img src="/img/revistas/aogp/v11n2/11n2a04q1.jpg"/></p>    
<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>A   mediana de IG &#224; data de ITP foi de 39 (35-41) semanas. Verific&#225;mos que 72,7%   (n=32) das gr&#225;vidas submetidas a MC apresentavam patologia obst&#233;trica na   gravidez atual e que 81,7% (n=36) das ITP ocorreram em grupos de risco   (patologia materna e/ou fetal e gr&#225;vidas com cesariana anterior- <a href="#q2">Quadro II</a>). As   principais indica&#231;&#245;es para ITP foram oligo&#226;mnios e RCF. </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>    <p align="center"><a name="q2"></a><img src="/img/revistas/aogp/v11n2/11n2a04q2.jpg"/></p>    
<p>&nbsp;</p>      <p>As   caracter&#237;sticas da MC e ITP encontram-se resumidas no <a href="#q3">Quadro III</a>. A MC foi   eficaz em 65,9% (n=29) dos casos, n&#227;o tendo sido registado nenhum caso de   entrada em trabalho de parto ativo com a utiliza&#231;&#227;o exclusiva da sonda de   Foley.</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>    <p align="center"><a name="q3"></a><img src="/img/revistas/aogp/v11n2/11n2a04q3.jpg"/></p>    
<p>&nbsp;</p>      <p>No   grupo de mulheres com MC mec&#226;nica eficaz, a taxa de entrada em trabalho de   parto ativo ap&#243;s administra&#231;&#227;o de ocitocina foi de 100% e a taxa de parto   vaginal foi de 86,20% (n=25).</p>     <p>No   grupo de mulheres com matura&#231;&#227;o ineficaz (n=15 /34,1%), optou-se por matura&#231;&#227;o   farmacol&#243;gica em 14 casos e cesariana eletiva em 1 caso (pela presen&#231;a de   tra&#231;ado cardiotocogr&#225;fico categoria 2 da ACOG, numa gr&#225;vida cujo motivo para   ITP foi o diagn&#243;stico de RCF associada a oligo&#226;mnios). Os f&#225;rmacos utilizados   foram: ocitocina (n=7/50%), misoprostol (n=4/28,6%) e pess&#225;rio de dinoprostona   (n=3/21,4%). Neste grupo, a taxa de parto por cesariana foi de 80% (n=12),   sendo que 41,7% (n=5) foram realizadas por EFNT e 33,3% (n=4) por tentativa   falhada de ITP. De referir que em todos os casos em que foi utilizada a   ocitocina havia antecedente de cesariana anterior.</p>     <p>No   grupo com expuls&#227;o espont&#226;nea da sonda (n=28), o tempo m&#233;dio at&#233; &#224; expuls&#227;o foi   de 13,46 horas e a MC foi eficaz em 75% (n=21) dos casos, e no grupo de   mulheres em que a sonda foi removida ap&#243;s 24h (n=16), 50% apresentavam um IB   &#8805;8.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>A   taxa global de parto vaginal foi de 63,6% (n=28), ocorrendo em m&#233;dia 39,2 horas   ap&#243;s a inser&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley. O tipo de parto e suas indica&#231;&#245;es   encontram-se resumidos no <a href="#q3">Quadro III</a>.</p>     <p>No   que respeita &#224; ocorr&#234;ncia de desfechos adversos maternos, registaram-se dois   casos de corioamnionite (4,5%), sendo que ambos os casos ocorreram ap&#243;s remo&#231;&#227;o   da sonda, na aus&#234;ncia de coloniza&#231;&#227;o por <i>Streptococus</i> do grupo B. Na   amostra estudada, n&#227;o se registaram casos de desfechos neonatais adversos. </p>     <p>Os   resultados dos subgrupos de risco encontram-se descritos no <a href="#q4">Quadro IV</a>. De   referir que 55,5% (n=10) das cesarianas ocorridas no G2, ocorreram na fase   ativa do TP. </p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>    <p align="center"><a name="q4"></a><img src="/img/revistas/aogp/v11n2/11n2a04q4.jpg"/></p>    
<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>No   que respeita aos desfechos adversos maternos e neonatais nos subgrupos de   risco, registou-se um caso de corioamnionite em cada grupo.</p>     <p><b>Discuss&#227;o</b></p>     <p>Nos   &#250;ltimos anos tem sido crescente o n&#250;mero de publica&#231;&#245;es internacionais   relativas &#224; utiliza&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley na MC. Tendo em conta as caracter&#237;sticas   da amostra estudada, com elevada percentagem de gravidezes de alto risco,   procurou-se tamb&#233;m avaliar a utiliza&#231;&#227;o deste m&#233;todo de MC em subpopula&#231;&#245;es de   risco, nomeadamente em gravidezes complicadas de RCF e oligo&#226;mnios, bem como em   gr&#225;vidas com antecedentes de cesariana anterior, e, portanto, com riscos   espec&#237;ficos para o parto. </p>     <p>A   import&#226;ncia deste estudo reside na necessidade de descrever a efic&#225;cia e   seguran&#231;a deste m&#233;todo nesta popula&#231;&#227;o de risco, procurando comparar os   resultados obtidos com aqueles descritos na literatura.</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>A   taxa de MC eficaz obtida na nossa amostra (65,9%) foi inferior &#224; encontrada em   estudos anteriores (79,5%<sup>19, </sup>e 89,2%<sup>20</sup>). No entanto, a   taxa de parto vaginal (63,6%) foi semelhante<sup>20</sup> ou superior<sup>19,21</sup> a outros estudos publicados. Pensamos que a menor taxa de matura&#231;&#227;o eficaz   poder&#225; estar relacionada com os diferentes crit&#233;rios utilizados na defini&#231;&#227;o de   efic&#225;cia (altera&#231;&#227;o do IB ap&#243;s sonda de Foley<sup>19 </sup>e IB&gt;6 ap&#243;s   exterioriza&#231;&#227;o da Foley<sup>20</sup>). A taxa superior de parto vaginal obtida   torna-se particularmente interessante tendo em conta as caracter&#237;sticas da   amostra estudada, j&#225; que 72,7% das ITP foram motivadas por patologia   materno-fetal, o que difere de estudos pr&#233;vios<sup> 19-21</sup>,<sup> </sup>em   que os principais motivos da ITP foram a idade gestacional e o antecedente de   cesariana anterior.</p>     <p>Neste   estudo, o intervalo m&#233;dio entre a coloca&#231;&#227;o da sonda e o parto vaginal (39,2   horas) foi superior ao descrito noutros trabalhos (14,7<sup>19</sup>, 16,5<sup>13</sup> e 29,6<sup>22</sup> horas), o que tamb&#233;m poder&#225; estar relacionado com as   caracter&#237;sticas da amostra estudada. Comparativamente a esses estudos, a nossa   amostra apresenta maior percentagem de gravidezes de risco, idade gestacional   m&#233;dia &#224; data da ITP inferior e uma taxa superior de mulheres sem parto vaginal<b> </b>anterior. Nas gravidezes complicadas de situa&#231;&#245;es que se associam a uma   potencial menor reserva oxigenativa do feto, existe uma tend&#234;ncia para utilizar   m&#233;todos de ITP de atua&#231;&#227;o mais gradual, que se associam a intervalos de tempo   mais prolongados at&#233; ao parto. Paralelamente, a necessidade de programar o   parto em idades gestacionais mais precoces, tem como consequ&#234;ncia a exist&#234;ncia   de colos mais imaturos, e, consequentemente, mais dif&#237;ceis de maturar. De   facto, alguns autores t&#234;m associado a utiliza&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley a intervalos   de tempo at&#233; ao parto mais prolongados<sup>1,23</sup>, podendo este facto estar   relacionado com a pr&#243;pria forma de atua&#231;&#227;o do m&#233;todo. A nossa experi&#234;ncia vai   de encontro a estes trabalhos, facto relevante para evitar a interpreta&#231;&#227;o   deste acontecimento como falha do m&#233;todo. Adicionalmente, parece-nos importante   sublinhar que apesar do maior intervalo at&#233; ao parto, este n&#227;o se associa a   maior taxa de complica&#231;&#245;es maternas ou neonatais.</p>     <p>A   baixa taxa de desfechos adversos maternos e neonatais encontrada est&#225; de acordo   com os estudos que apontam a sonda de Foley como um m&#233;todo de MC seguro<sup>5,14,19,20,23</sup>.   Apesar do aumento te&#243;rico do risco de corioamnionite referido por alguns   autores, a meta-an&#225;lise realizada por McMaster <i>et al.</i> em 2015<sup>24</sup>,   veio confirmar que o risco de infe&#231;&#227;o associado &#224; sonda de Foley &#233; reduzido e   semelhante ao de outros m&#233;todos de ITP. A taxa de corioamnionite encontrada no   nosso trabalho (4,5%) &#233; semelhante &#224; verificada noutros estudos e &#224; descrita na   literatura (4-6%) em gravidezes de termo.<sup>20,25 </sup>Deste modo, os   autores concordam com os trabalhos que defendem a n&#227;o utiliza&#231;&#227;o sistem&#225;tica de   antibioterapia profil&#225;tica durante a utiliza&#231;&#227;o deste m&#233;todo, mesmo quando a   pesquisa da coloniza&#231;&#227;o por <i>Streptococcus</i> do Grupo B &#233; positiva. A   inexist&#234;ncia de casos de taquissistolia, apesar de uma taxa de matura&#231;&#227;o eficaz   de 65,9%, bem como a baixa taxa de cesarianas por EFNT (n=4/9,1%) vem salientar   os benef&#237;cios da utiliza&#231;&#227;o deste m&#233;todo em compara&#231;&#227;o com outros m&#233;todos   farmacol&#243;gicos de matura&#231;&#227;o<sup>11</sup>. Estes benef&#237;cios tornam-se   particularmente importantes quando nos referimos a popula&#231;&#245;es obst&#233;tricas com   maior risco de desfechos adversos. </p>     <p>A   ITP segura e eficaz em gravidezes complicadas de RCF e/ou oligo&#226;mnios &#233; um   desafio obst&#233;trico, principalmente quando o IB &#233; desfavor&#225;vel<sup>14,16</sup>.   Apesar da inquestion&#225;vel efic&#225;cia das prostaglandinas na MC, a sua utiliza&#231;&#227;o   em gravidezes cujos fetos t&#234;m menor toler&#226;ncia ao trabalho de parto &#233; sempre   motivo de grande apreens&#227;o por parte dos profissionais de sa&#250;de, pelo que a utiliza&#231;&#227;o   de um m&#233;todo que diminua os riscos fetais sem diminuir a efic&#225;cia da ITP &#233;   muito importante. </p>     <p>A   an&#225;lise dos resultados obtidos no G1 revelou uma taxa de MC eficaz inferior &#224;   encontrada na amostra geral (60,9% <i>vs.</i> 65,9%), apesar da taxa de parto vaginal   ter sido superior (69,6% <i>vs.</i> 63,6%). Embora os dados existentes na   literatura sejam escassos, a taxa de parto vaginal encontrada na nossa amostra   foi semelhante &#224; descrita por Chavakula <i>et al.</i><sup>14</sup>,   corroborando a efic&#225;cia deste m&#233;todo para esta subpopula&#231;&#227;o de risco.   Concomitantemente, a inexist&#234;ncia de complica&#231;&#245;es neonatais vem apoiar a   seguran&#231;a deste m&#233;todo neste subgrupo.</p>     <p>Da   mesma forma, apesar dos piores desfechos geralmente associados &#224;s gravidezes   complicadas de oligo&#226;mnios, nomeadamente o maior risco de cesariana intraparto   por EFNT<sup>16</sup>, os resultados obtidos neste subgrupo foram compar&#225;veis   aos da amostra geral estudada, sublinhando a efic&#225;cia e seguran&#231;a deste m&#233;todo   nesta subpopula&#231;&#227;o de risco.</p>     <p>No   que respeita aos resultados obtidos no G2, a taxa de MC eficaz (72,2%) foi   semelhante ao estudo de Souza (79,9%)<sup>19</sup>. Apesar da consider&#225;vel taxa   de matura&#231;&#227;o eficaz e de mulheres que entraram em TP ativo ap&#243;s administra&#231;&#227;o   de ocitocina (77,8%), a taxa de parto vaginal foi de 50% o que, apesar de ser superior   ao trabalho de Souza (23%) e semelhante ao trabalho de Sarreau M. (53,7%)<sup>21</sup>,<sup> </sup>merece alguma reflex&#227;o. Na literatura, a taxa descrita de parto vaginal   ap&#243;s parto por cesariana &#233; de 72-76% podendo ser grandemente influenciada pela   presen&#231;a de fatores de bom ou mau progn&#243;stico<sup>17</sup>. Na presen&#231;a de   fatores de mau progn&#243;stico, nomeadamente a necessidade de ITP, a inexist&#234;ncia   de um parto vaginal pr&#233;vio, IMC&gt;30 e cesariana anterior motivada por   dist&#243;cia, a taxa de parto vaginal pode diminuir para 40%<sup>17</sup>. Pensamos   que a taxa de cesarianas neste grupo pode ser em parte explicada pelas   caracter&#237;sticas da amostra (n&#250;mero pequeno, necessidade de ITP com IB   desfavor&#225;veis, exist&#234;ncia de patologia materno-fetal em 66,6% dos casos e a   inexist&#234;ncia de parto vaginal anterior em 83,3%). Para al&#233;m disso, e n&#227;o   obstante tal n&#227;o ter sido alvo de an&#225;lise, &#233; preciso tamb&#233;m ter em conta que,   na pr&#225;tica di&#225;ria, a conduta adotada perante a ITP em mulheres com antecedentes   de parto por cesariana, depende da opini&#227;o e experi&#234;ncia individual de cada   profissional. Especificamente em gr&#225;vidas com cesariana anterior, o trabalho de   parto est&#225; associado a um risco aumentado de rotura uterina, que &#233; maior quando   &#233; realizada ITP<sup>2,4,17</sup>. Tal como em outros trabalhos publicados<sup>19,21</sup>,   no nosso estudo n&#227;o se verificou nenhum caso de rotura uterina, embora   sublinhemos a pequena amostra estudada. </p>     <p>Como   limita&#231;&#245;es do nosso estudo salientamos a sua natureza retrospetiva, o tamanho   da amostra, bem como a aus&#234;ncia de um grupo de controlo. </p>     <p>O   facto de a sonda de Foley ter sido reintroduzida recentemente na pr&#225;tica   cl&#237;nica da nossa institui&#231;&#227;o, de estarem dispon&#237;veis outros m&#233;todos, bem como a   inexperi&#234;ncia de alguns colegas na utiliza&#231;&#227;o deste m&#233;todo, ser&#227;o poss&#237;veis   fatores que justificam o tamanho da amostra. Por outro lado, a grande   experi&#234;ncia adquirida com outros m&#233;todos, nomeadamente com o misoprostol, faz   com que a utiliza&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley seja reservada preferencialmente para   situa&#231;&#245;es de risco. </p>     <p>No   entanto, apesar das limita&#231;&#245;es referidas n&#227;o permitirem a extrapola&#231;&#227;o dos   resultados para a popula&#231;&#227;o geral, destacamos o facto de este ser o primeiro   estudo a avaliar a utiliza&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley na matura&#231;&#227;o cervical numa   popula&#231;&#227;o portuguesa e de, dadas as caracter&#237;sticas da amostra estudada,   permitir a avalia&#231;&#227;o dos resultados em subgrupos de risco, muitas vezes   exclu&#237;dos de outros trabalhos. </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>Ap&#243;s   um per&#237;odo de menor entusiasmo na utiliza&#231;&#227;o da sonda de Foley, o uso deste   m&#233;todo tem vindo a aumentar nos &#250;ltimos anos. Os resultados do nosso trabalho   apoiam a efic&#225;cia e seguran&#231;a da sonda de Foley na MC, inclusive em popula&#231;&#245;es   com elevada percentagem de gravidezes de risco. De facto, tendo em conta a sua   forma de atua&#231;&#227;o, os autores consideram que a sonda de Foley poder&#225; ser   considerada o m&#233;todo de elei&#231;&#227;o para matura&#231;&#227;o cervical em subpopula&#231;&#245;es de   risco. No entanto, ser&#225; importante a realiza&#231;&#227;o de novos estudos prospetivos,   com amostras maiores, dirigidos a estes subgrupos.</p>     <p>&nbsp; </p>     <p><b>REFER&#202;NCIAS BIBLIOGR&#193;FICAS</b></p>     <!-- ref --><p>1. Dire&#231;&#227;o-Geral da   Sa&#250;de. Indu&#231;&#227;o do Trabalho de Parto. Norma de Orienta&#231;&#227;o da DGS n&#186; 002/ 2015 de   19-01-2015.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862540&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400001&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>2. Leduc D,   Biringer A, Lee L, Dy J. Induction of Labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can   2013;35(9):1-18.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862542&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400002&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>3. American College   of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletim number 107.   Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386-397.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862544&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400003&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>4. World Health   Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research (Switzerland).   Recommendations for induction of labour. Geneva: WHO; 2011.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862546&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400004&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <!-- ref --><p>5. Giugliano E,   Cagnazzo E, Milillo V, Moscarini M, Vesce F, Caserta D, Marci R. The Risk   Factors for Failure of Labor Induction: A Cohort Study. J Obstet Gynecol India   2014;64(2):111-115.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862548&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400005&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>6. Bishop EH.   Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266-268.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862550&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400006&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <!-- ref --><p>7. Greenberg V,   Khalifeh A. Intracervical Foley Balloon Catheter for Cervical Ripening and   Labor Induction: A Review. Semin Perinatol 2015;39(6):441-443.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862552&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400007&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>&#160;8. Durie D, Lawal   A, Zegelbone P. Other mechanical methods for pre-induction cervical ripening.   Semin Perinatol 2015;39(6): 444-449.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862554&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400008&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <!-- ref --><p>9. Chen W, Xue J,   Gaudet L, Walker M, Wen S. Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol   versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gyne Obst   2015;129(3):193-198.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862556&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400009&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <p>10. Jozwiak M,   Eikelder M, Oude Rengerink K, Grooc C, Feitsma H, Spaanderman M, van Pampus M,   de Leeuw JW, Mol BW, Bloemenkamp K. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol:   randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and   meta-analysis of literature. Am J Perinatol 2014;31 (2):145-156.</p>     <!-- ref --><p>11. Jozwiak M,   Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, Mol BWJ, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for   induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (3):CD001233.   DOI:10.1002/ /14651858.CD001233.pub2.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862559&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400011&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>12. Vaknin Z,   Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins   for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and   meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(5):418-429.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862561&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400012&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <p>13. Jozwiak M,   Rengerink KO, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MR, de Graaf I, van Huizen M,   Oudijk M, Papatsonis D, Perquin D, Porath M, van der Post J, Rijnders R,   Scheepers H, Spaanderman M, van Pampus M, Leeuw J, Mol B, Bloemenkamp K. Foley   catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term   (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378   (9809):2095-2103. </p>     <!-- ref --><p>14. Chavakula PR,   Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, Londhe V, Jeyaseelan V, Mathews J. Misoprostol versus   Foley catheter insertion for induction of labour in pregnancies affected by   fetal growth restriction. Int J Gyne Obst 2015;129(2):152-155.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862564&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400014&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <p>15. Bracken H,   Mundle S, Faragher B, Easterling T, Haycox A, Turner M, Alfirevic Z, Winikoff   B, Weeks A. Induction of labour in pre-eclamptic women: a randomized trial   comparing the Foley balloon catheter with oral misoprostol. BMC Pregnancy   Childbirth 2014;14:308-313. </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<!-- ref --><p>16. Ashwal E,   Hiersch L, Melamed N, Aviram A, Wiznitzer A, Yogev Y. The association between   isolated oligohydramnios at term and pregnancy outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet   2014; 290(5):875-881.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862567&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400016&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>17. Royal College   of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Green Top Guidelines (UK). Birth After   Previous Caesarean Birth, Guideline no.45. London: RCOG; 2015.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862569&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400017&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <!-- ref --><p>18. American   College of Obstetricians ang Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletim number 106.   Intrapartum Fetal Heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and   general management principles. Obstet and Gynecol 2009;114(1):192-202.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862571&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400018&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>19. Souza SA,   Junior WM, Araujo B, Coelho I, Guerra C. M&#233;todo mec&#226;nico de indu&#231;&#227;o do parto em   gestante de alto risco com cesariana anterior. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet   2015;37(3):127-132.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862573&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400019&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>20. Kruit H,   Heikinheimo O, Ulander VM. Management of prolonged pregnancy by induction with   a Foley catheter. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94(6):608-614.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862575&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400020&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<!-- ref --><p>21. Sarreau M,   Leufflen E, Monceau D, Tariel P, Villemonteix O, Morel F, Pierre F. Maturation   du col ut&#233;rin d&#233;favorable par ballonnet supra-cervical sur ut&#233;rus cicatriciel:   &#233;tude r&#233;trospective multicentrique de 151 patientes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol   Reprod 2014;43(1):46-55.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862577&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400021&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>22. Karjane NW,   Brock EL, Walsh SW. Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without   extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107(2):234-239.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862579&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400022&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>23. Mizrachi Y,   Levy M, Bar J, Kovo M. Induction of labor in nulliparous women with unfavorable   cervix: a comparison of Foley catheter and vaginal prostaglandin E2. Arch   Gynecol Obstet 2016; 294(4):725-730.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862581&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400023&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     <!-- ref --><p>24. McMaster K,   Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz A. Evaluation of a transcervical Foley Catheter as a   source of Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol   2015;126(3):539-551.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862583&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400024&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --> </p>     <!-- ref --><p>25. Maslovitz S,   Lessing JB, Many A. Complications of trans-cervical Foley catheter for labor   induction among 1083 women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 28(3):473-477.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=1862585&pid=S1646-5830201700020000400025&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><a href="#topc0">Endere&ccedil;o para correspond&ecirc;ncia</a> | <a href="#topc0">Direcci&oacute;n para correspondencia</a> | <a href="#topc0">Correspondence</a><a name="c0"></a></p>      <p> Ana Teresa Marujo</p>     <p>E-mail: <a href="mailto:anatmarujo@hotmail.com">anatmarujo@hotmail.com</a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><b>Recebido em: </b>16/03/2016</p>     <p><b>Aceite para publica&#231;&#227;o:</b> 10/12/2016</p>      ]]></body><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>Direção-Geral da Saúde</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Indução do Trabalho de Parto: Norma de Orientação da DGS nº 002/ 2015 de 19-01-2015]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Leduc]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Biringer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lee]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Induction of Labour]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Obstet Gynaecol Can]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<volume>35</volume>
<numero>9</numero>
<issue>9</issue>
<page-range>1-18</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<collab>American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</collab>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[ACOG Practice Bulletim number 107: Induction of labor]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>114</volume>
<numero>2 Pt 1</numero>
<issue>2 Pt 1</issue>
<page-range>386-397</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<collab>World Health Organization^dDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Recommendations for induction of labour]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Geneva ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[WHO]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Giugliano]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cagnazzo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Milillo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[V]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Moscarini]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Vesce]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Caserta]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Marci]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The Risk Factors for Failure of Labor Induction: A Cohort Study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Obstet Gynecol India]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>64</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>111-115</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bishop]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EH]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Pelvic scoring for elective induction]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>1964</year>
<volume>24</volume>
<page-range>266-268</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Greenberg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[V]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Khalifeh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Intracervical Foley Balloon Catheter for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: A Review]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Semin Perinatol]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>39</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>441-443</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Durie]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lawal]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Zegelbone]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Other mechanical methods for pre-induction cervical ripening]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Semin Perinatol]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>39</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>444-449</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[W]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Xue]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gaudet]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Walker]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Int J Gyne Obst]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>129</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>193-198</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jozwiak]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Eikelder]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Oude Rengerink]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Grooc]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Feitsma]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spaanderman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Perinatol]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>31</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>145-156</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jozwiak]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bloemenkamp]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KWM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kelly]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mol]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[BWJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Irion]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[O]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Boulvain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Mechanical methods for induction of labour]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Cochrane Database Syst Rev]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>CD001233</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Vaknin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Z]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kurzweil]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Y]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sherman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>203</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>418-429</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jozwiak]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rengerink]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KO]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Benthem]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[van Beek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dijksterhuis]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MR]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[de Graaf]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Lancet]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<volume>378</volume>
<numero>9809</numero>
<issue>9809</issue>
<page-range>2095-2103</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chavakula]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[PR]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Benjamin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SJ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Abraham]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Londhe]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[V]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jeyaseelan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[V]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mathews]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Misoprostol versus Foley catheter insertion for induction of labour in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Int J Gyne Obst]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>129</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>152-155</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bracken]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mundle]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Faragher]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Easterling]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Haycox]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Turner]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Induction of labour in pre-eclamptic women: a randomized trial comparing the Foley balloon catheter with oral misoprostol]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Pregnancy Childbirth]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>14</volume>
<page-range>308-313</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ashwal]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hiersch]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Melamed]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[N]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Aviram]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wiznitzer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Yogev]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Y]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The association between isolated oligohydramnios at term and pregnancy outcome]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Arch Gynecol Obstet]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>290</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>875-881</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<collab>Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Green Top Guidelines</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth, Guideline no.45]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[London ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[RCOG]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<label>18</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<collab>American College of Obstetricians ang Gynecologists</collab>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[ACOG Practice Bulletim number 106: Intrapartum Fetal Heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet and Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>114</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>192-202</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<label>19</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Souza]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Junior]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[WM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Araujo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Coelho]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[I]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Guerra]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Método mecânico de indução do parto em gestante de alto risco com cesariana anterior]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>37</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>127-132</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<label>20</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kruit]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Heikinheimo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[O]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ulander]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[VM]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Management of prolonged pregnancy by induction with a Foley catheter]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>94</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>608-614</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<label>21</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sarreau]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Leufflen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Monceau]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tariel]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Villemonteix]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[O]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Morel]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pierre]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Maturation du col utérin défavorable par ballonnet supra-cervical sur utérus cicatriciel: étude rétrospective multicentrique de 151 patientes]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod]]></source>
<year>2014</year>
<volume>43</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>46-55</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<label>22</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Karjane]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[NW]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Brock]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EL]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Walsh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SW]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>107</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>234-239</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<label>23</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mizrachi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Y]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Levy]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bar]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kovo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Induction of labor in nulliparous women with unfavorable cervix: a comparison of Foley catheter and vaginal prostaglandin E2]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Arch Gynecol Obstet]]></source>
<year>2016</year>
<volume>294</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>725-730</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<label>24</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McMaster]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[K]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sanchez-Ramos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kaunitz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Evaluation of a transcervical Foley Catheter as a source of Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>126</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>539-551</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<label>25</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Maslovitz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lessing]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JB]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Many]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Complications of trans-cervical Foley catheter for labor induction among 1083 women]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Arch Gynecol Obstet]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>28</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>473-477</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
