Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2025
E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Comparing transcervical balloon with osmotic dilators for cervical preparation prior to procedural abortion: A
Serena M Liu1, Andrea Henkel1, Pamela Meza1
1Family Planning Services and Research, Division of Gynecology and Gynecologic Specialties, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Objectives:
This study aimed to compare cervical preparation with transcervical balloon to osmotic dilators for second-trimester procedural abortions.
Study Design:
We performed an unblinded, randomized, noninferiority trial of people undergoing second-trimester procedural abortion at 18 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks' gestation. We randomized participants to either overnight osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or transcervical balloon (Foley). Both groups received overnight mifepristone and preprocedural misoprostol. We powered the study on mean difference in procedure duration, a noninferiority limit of 5 minutes. We compared preprocedure cervical dilation and the need for additional dilation and, using a 100-point visual analog scale, measured physician satisfaction and ease of procedure, and participant pain and satisfaction.
Results:
We recruited 32 participants at a single academic center. Although procedure time (minutes) was similar (balloon: 22.6 ± 8.9 vs Dilapan-S: 22.4 ± 12.8, p = 0.96), noninferiority was not met (mean difference, 0.2 minutes; 95% CI, -7.8 to 8.2). Cervical dilation >2 cm was more likely after Dilapan-S (100% vs 62.5%, p = 0.02). Placement was well tolerated with similar time (minutes) for insertion (balloon: 4.8 ± 1.0, Dilapan-S: 5.1 ± 2.3, p = 0.64) and maximum pain (median) with insertion (balloon 39 [5-78], Dilapan-S: 39 [0-100], p = 0.92). Pain immediately postinsertion was higher for Dilapan-S (33 [0-100] vs 18 [0-50], p = 0.046) and similar for maximum pain overnight, participant satisfaction, and likelihood to recommend. Complications were minor and similar between groups (p = 0.60).
Conclusion:
While significantly more people with transcervical balloon required mechanical dilation, the difference in operative time was clinically negligible. The transcervical balloon was well tolerated and acceptable by participants.
Implications:
Clinicians experienced in mechanical dilation may consider a transcervical balloon as a lower-cost tool for second-trimester abortion cervical preparation.
Clinical Trial Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05099991.
