362 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29903553)
1. [Cervical ripening and labor induction: Evaluation of single balloon catheter compared to double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert].
Pez V; Deruelle P; Kyheng M; Boyon C; Clouqueur E; Garabedian C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol; 2018; 46(7-8):570-574. PubMed ID: 29903553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Double-balloon catheter compared to vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening in obese women at term].
Grange J; Dimet J; Vital M; Le Thuaut A; Ducarme G
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol; 2017 Oct; 45(10):521-527. PubMed ID: 28757105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix.
Du C; Liu Y; Liu Y; Ding H; Zhang R; Tan J
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2015 Jun; 291(6):1221-7. PubMed ID: 25408273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: The MAGPOP randomised controlled trial.
Diguisto C; Le Gouge A; Arthuis C; Winer N; Parant O; Poncelet C; Chauleur C; Hannigsberg J; Ducarme G; Gallot D; Gabriel R; Desbriere R; Beucher G; Faraguet C; Isly H; Rozenberg P; Giraudeau B; Perrotin F;
PLoS Med; 2021 Feb; 18(2):e1003448. PubMed ID: 33571294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert.
Wang W; Zheng J; Fu J; Zhang X; Ma Q; Yu S; Li M; Hou L
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2014 Nov; 27(17):1805-8. PubMed ID: 24397441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study.
Chowdhary A; Bagga R; Jasvinder Kalra ; Jain V; Saha SC; Kumar P
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2019 May; 39(4):461-467. PubMed ID: 30747025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Term prelabor rupture of membranes: Foley catheter versus dinoprostone as ripening agent.
Athiel Y; Crequit S; Bongiorno M; Sanyan S; Renevier B
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2020 Oct; 49(8):101834. PubMed ID: 32585393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis.
Liu YR; Pu CX; Wang XY; Wang XY
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2019 Jan; 299(1):7-12. PubMed ID: 30315411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Double-balloon catheter and sequential vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 alone for induction of labor after previous cesarean section.
Kehl S; Weiss C; Wamsler M; Beyer J; Dammer U; Heimrich J; Faschingbauer F; Sütterlin M; Beckmann MW; Schleussner E
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2016 Apr; 293(4):757-65. PubMed ID: 26437956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Clinical analysis of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening in 66 cases].
He Y; Hu J; Zhang X; Huang H; Chen Q
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2014 Oct; 49(10):741-5. PubMed ID: 25537244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter.
Cromi A; Ghezzi F; Uccella S; Agosti M; Serati M; Marchitelli G; Bolis P
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Aug; 207(2):125.e1-7. PubMed ID: 22704766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Induction of labor in women with previous caesarean delivery with balloon catheter: Is it worth it?].
Boujenah J; Fleury C; Tigaizin A; Benbara A; Mounsambote L; Murtada R; Fermaut M; Carbillon L
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol; 2019 Mar; 47(3):273-280. PubMed ID: 30745158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of effectiveness and safety of cervical ripening methods for induction of labour: A population-based study using coarsened exact matching.
Blanc-Petitjean P; Carbonne B; Deneux-Tharaux C; Salomé M; Goffinet F; Le Ray C;
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2019 Sep; 33(5):313-322. PubMed ID: 31342567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Balloon catheter vs oxytocin alone for induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial.
Sarreau M; Isly H; Poulain P; Fontaine B; Morel O; Villemonteix P; Mares P; Mousty E; Godard A; Ragot S; Pierre F
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2020 Feb; 99(2):259-266. PubMed ID: 31432510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Double-balloon device and intravaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening in women with unfavourable cervix].
Letailleur M; Mathieu N; Dietrich G; Lethuilier C; Verspyck E; Marpeau L
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2015 Jun; 43(6):424-30. PubMed ID: 25943409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mechanical cervicAl ripeninG for women with PrOlongedPregnancies (MAGPOP): protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a silicone double balloon catheter versus the Propess system for the slow release of dinoprostone for cervical ripening of prolonged pregnancies.
Diguisto C; Le Gouge A; Giraudeau B; Perrotin F
BMJ Open; 2017 Sep; 7(9):e016069. PubMed ID: 28912192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical ripening by prostaglandin E2 in patients with a previous cesarean section.
Bouchghoul H; Zeino S; Houllier M; Senat MV
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2020 Apr; 49(4):101699. PubMed ID: 32018044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone.
Suffecool K; Rosenn BM; Kam S; Mushi J; Foroutan J; Herrera K
J Perinat Med; 2014 Mar; 42(2):213-8. PubMed ID: 24096438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Cervical ripening after previous cesarean section with dinoprostone vaginal insert].
Coste Mazeau P; Catalan C; Eyraud JL; Aubard Y; Gauthier T
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol; 2017 Feb; 45(2):77-82. PubMed ID: 28368799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Double-balloon catheter for induction of labour in women with a previous cesarean section, could it be the best choice?
De Bonrostro Torralba C; Tejero Cabrejas EL; Marti Gamboa S; Lapresta Moros M; Campillos Maza JM; Castán Mateo S
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2017 May; 295(5):1135-1143. PubMed ID: 28315935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
