Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction
Background: Induction of labour is common in obstetric practice. We conducted this study to find the appropriate and safe drug for labour induction and to compare the safety and efficacy of oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for labour induction. Methods: In a provisional, prospective and cro...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cukurova University
2013-06-01
|
| Series: | Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scopemed.org/fulltextpdf.php?mno=27365 |
| _version_ | 1797923533413679104 |
|---|---|
| author | Khaled Ibrahim Abu El aish Haly Suliman Zourob |
| author_facet | Khaled Ibrahim Abu El aish Haly Suliman Zourob |
| author_sort | Khaled Ibrahim Abu El aish |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Induction of labour is common in obstetric practice. We conducted this study to find the appropriate and safe drug for labour induction and to compare the safety and efficacy of oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for labour induction. Methods: In a provisional, prospective and cross-sectional study, one hundred and fifty five singleton cephalic presentation full term pregnancies with medical or obstetric indication for labour induction were allocated in two groups. First group received oral 50 micrograms for nulliparas and low parity group (1-4), and 25micrograms for grand multiparas (≥ 5) misoprostol orally every 6 hours to a maximum of four doses daily. In the second group vaginal tablets of dinoprostone 3mg then 1.5mg for nulliparas and 1.5mg for low parity and grand multiparas groups were inserted in the posterior fornix, every 8 hours. Primary outcome measures were: induction success, induction-delivery interval and number of used doses. Secondary outcome measures included: maternal side effects, caesarean section rate, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Data was collected from patient case notes and analyzed using software SPSS (version 13.0) and p-value < 0.05 was used as statistical significance of differences. Results: In our study there were no significant differences in baseline parameters in the two groups nor in the indications for labor induction except misoprostol was used in premature rupture of membrane. Induction of labor succeeded in 123 (79.35%) women without other interventions from other methods (80.26%misoprostol group versus 78.5% dinoprostone p=0.492). It was observed that there were no significant differences between the two groups in final outcomes nor in obstetrical complications. There was no significance in differences between misoprostol and dinoprostone groups in induction-delivery interval (15.2 ± 14.5 hours versus 16.4 ± 11.3 hours p=0.6 resp.). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that oral misoprostol is as effective as vaginal dinoprostone tablets for induction of labor and can be a good alternative for this purpose. [Cukurova Med J 2013; 38(3.000): 382-389] |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T14:47:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-51cb785fc1304f78a39f3940d9b4c543 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0250-5150 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T14:47:57Z |
| publishDate | 2013-06-01 |
| publisher | Cukurova University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi |
| spelling | doaj.art-51cb785fc1304f78a39f3940d9b4c5432023-02-15T16:07:45ZengCukurova UniversityÇukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi0250-51502013-06-01383382389Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor inductionKhaled Ibrahim Abu El aishHaly Suliman ZourobBackground: Induction of labour is common in obstetric practice. We conducted this study to find the appropriate and safe drug for labour induction and to compare the safety and efficacy of oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for labour induction. Methods: In a provisional, prospective and cross-sectional study, one hundred and fifty five singleton cephalic presentation full term pregnancies with medical or obstetric indication for labour induction were allocated in two groups. First group received oral 50 micrograms for nulliparas and low parity group (1-4), and 25micrograms for grand multiparas (≥ 5) misoprostol orally every 6 hours to a maximum of four doses daily. In the second group vaginal tablets of dinoprostone 3mg then 1.5mg for nulliparas and 1.5mg for low parity and grand multiparas groups were inserted in the posterior fornix, every 8 hours. Primary outcome measures were: induction success, induction-delivery interval and number of used doses. Secondary outcome measures included: maternal side effects, caesarean section rate, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. Data was collected from patient case notes and analyzed using software SPSS (version 13.0) and p-value < 0.05 was used as statistical significance of differences. Results: In our study there were no significant differences in baseline parameters in the two groups nor in the indications for labor induction except misoprostol was used in premature rupture of membrane. Induction of labor succeeded in 123 (79.35%) women without other interventions from other methods (80.26%misoprostol group versus 78.5% dinoprostone p=0.492). It was observed that there were no significant differences between the two groups in final outcomes nor in obstetrical complications. There was no significance in differences between misoprostol and dinoprostone groups in induction-delivery interval (15.2 ± 14.5 hours versus 16.4 ± 11.3 hours p=0.6 resp.). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that oral misoprostol is as effective as vaginal dinoprostone tablets for induction of labor and can be a good alternative for this purpose. [Cukurova Med J 2013; 38(3.000): 382-389]http://www.scopemed.org/fulltextpdf.php?mno=27365MisoprostolDinoprostoneInduction of labourInduction delivery intervalcervical ripening |
| spellingShingle | Khaled Ibrahim Abu El aish Haly Suliman Zourob Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Misoprostol Dinoprostone Induction of labour Induction delivery interval cervical ripening |
| title | Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction |
| title_full | Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction |
| title_fullStr | Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction |
| title_full_unstemmed | Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction |
| title_short | Oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction |
| title_sort | oral misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal tablets for labor induction |
| topic | Misoprostol Dinoprostone Induction of labour Induction delivery interval cervical ripening |
| url | http://www.scopemed.org/fulltextpdf.php?mno=27365 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT khaledibrahimabuelaish oralmisoprostolversusdinoprostonevaginaltabletsforlaborinduction AT halysulimanzourob oralmisoprostolversusdinoprostonevaginaltabletsforlaborinduction |