MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in the University of Malaya Medical Center. A total of 163 term multiparas (no dropouts) with unripe cervixes (Bishop score ≤5) scheduled for labor induction were randomized to outpatient or inpatient Foley catheter. Primary outcomes were delivery during "working hours" 08:00-18:00 h and maternal satisfaction on allocated care (assessed by 11-point visual numerical rating score 0-10, with higher score indicating more satisfied).
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13534944.
RESULTS: Comparing outpatient and inpatient arms, delivery during working hours were 54/82 (65.9%) vs. 48/81 (59.3%) (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.421) and median maternal satisfaction visual numerical rating score was 9 (interquartile range 9-9) vs. 9 (interquartile range 8-9, p = 0.134), repectively. Duration of hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shorter in the outpatient arm: 35.8 ± 20.2 vs. 45.2 ± 16.2 h (p = 0.001) and 4.1 ± 2.9 vs. 5.3 ± 3.6 h (p = 0.020), respectively. Other maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial failed to demonstrate the anticipated increase in births during working hours with outpatient compared with inpatient induction of labor with Foley catheter in parous women with an unripe cervix. Hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shortened in the outpatient group. The rate of maternal satisfaction was high in both groups and no significant differences were found.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
RESULTS: Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6-9] vs 8 [6-10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants' fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.
METHODS: All patients, who underwent magnetic anal sphincter augmentation procedure at a single center between December 2008 and January 2016, were consecutively included. Symptom severity [Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS)], quality of life [Fecal-Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire (FIQL)], bowel diary data, and patients' satisfaction were assessed before and after implantation.
RESULTS: Forty-five patients (43 female), mean (s.d.) age 66.82 (±10.07), were followed for a median of 36 months (range 6-84). Two patients were explanted and 1 lost to follow-up. On a 3-week diary, major leakage rate significantly improved as did CCIS and FIQL. No significant difference was seen for flatus and minor leaks. Postoperative decrease of CCIS by ≥5.5 points correlated best with satisfaction, expressed by 22 patients (48% in intention-to-treat analysis). An independent predictive factor for success after implantation was no previous fecal incontinence surgical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction, functional, and quality of life outcomes improve significantly following magnetic anal sphincter augmentation.
METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled study of 420 patients from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2017 to evaluate the use of DBC in IOL in an Asian population looking at the adverse effects in the first 12 h after insertion. Women were assigned randomly to cervical ripening with either a DBC or a prostaglandin pessary. The adverse events in the 12 h after DBC or first prostaglandin inserted, the efficacy of a DBC to a prostaglandin in labour induction and maternal satisfaction were evaluated.
RESULTS: There were significantly less women with uterine hyperstimulation in the DBC (2 vs 24, p ≤ 0.0001) compared to the prostaglandin group. There were no women with uterine hyperstimulation and non-reassuring foetal status in the DBC while there were 5 women with uterine hyperstimulation and foetal distress in the prostaglandin group. Use of entonox was significantly less in the DBC group (p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in both groups in caesarean section, vaginal deliveries and time to delivery, although significant less time was needed to achieve cervical os dilation more than 4 cm in the DBC group (p ≤ 0.0001). Neonatal birth outcomes were similar. Women's pain scores were similar for both methods. 80.1% of women allocated the DBC and 76.8% of women allocated the PGE were keen to recommend their method of induction.
CONCLUSION: Double balloon catheter remains a good alternative method for inducing women in view of a good safety profile with low risk of hyperstimulation and high maternal satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620215.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of English articles indexed by PubMed, Thomson Institute of Scientific Information's Web of Science, and Elsevier's Scopus between 1998 and 2020.
STUDY SELECTION: The first author (N.N.) screened all titles and abstracts based on the eligibility criteria. Experimental and empirical articles such as randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, pre-experimental studies, case studies, surveys, feasibility studies, qualitative descriptive studies, and cohort studies were all included in this review.
DATA EXTRACTION: The first, second, and fourth authors (N.N., W.I., B.N.) independently extracted data using data fields predefined by the third author (M.B.). The data extracted through this review included study objective, study design, purpose of telerehabilitation, telerehabilitation equipment, patient/sample, age, disease, data collection methods, theory/framework, and adoption themes.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A telerehabilitation adoption process model was proposed to highlight the significance of the readiness stage and to classify the primary studies. The articles were classified based on 6 adoption themes, namely users' perception, perspective, and experience; users' satisfaction; users' acceptance and adherence; TeleRehab usability; individual readiness; and users' motivation and awareness.
RESULTS: A total of 133 of 914 articles met the eligibility criteria. The majority of papers were randomized controlled trials (27%), followed by surveys (15%). Almost 49% of the papers examined the use of telerehabilitation technology in patients with nervous system problems, 23% examined physical disability disorders, 10% examined cardiovascular diseases, and 8% inspected pulmonary diseases.
CONCLUSION: Research on the adoption of telerehabilitation is still in its infancy and needs further attention from researchers working in health care, especially in resource-limited countries. Indeed, studies on the adoption of telerehabilitation are essential to minimize implementation failure, as these studies will help to inform health care personnel and clients about successful adoption strategies.