Artificial labor induction is a common obstetric procedure, and according to the perinatal surveys, the rate of its use is increasing in France. For example, in France the rate of artificial labor induction increased from 22.0% of births in 2016 to 25.8% in 2021, and in the United Kingdom from 20.4% in 2007 to 32.6% in 2017 [1,2]. Caesarean section rates are also increasing worldwide [3]. However, there are no clear recommendations concerning the choice of the cervical ripening technique for these women. The latest recommendations for French clinical practice on this subject, published in 2012, state that “oxytocin should be used with caution and the use of prostaglandin (PG) E2 should take into account obstetric and maternal factors that may influence the success of a vaginal delivery attempt and should be used with the utmost caution” and that “current data were insufficient to assess the risk of uterine rupture after induction of labor by transcervical balloon, and that its use is possible with caution” [4]. A 2017 Cochrane systematic review concluded that there was insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the best method of labor induction in women with a history of caesarean section, as did a meta-analysis published in 2019 [5,6].

Given the lack of data on induction methods, particularly those using mechanical methods, for women with a previous caesarean section, there is a need to evaluate better the method of balloon catheter cervical ripening. Studies of balloon catheter induction in women with previous caesarean section have found the method to be safe and to have an efficacy rate around 60% [7], [8], [9], [10]. Most of these studies are small and had heterogeneous samples, and PGs were not used after the balloon catheter induction if the cervix remained unfavorable, unlike at our center [11]. Few studies have investigated the factors associated with successful induction in the context of previous caesarean section and balloon catheter induction [7,12].

Thus, our primary objective was to determine the success rate of this method in women with a history of caesarean section. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the main factors associated with the success of this method of induction and the rates of associated maternal–fetal complications.