A prospective double blind study using oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction
- PMID: 20604647
- DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2010.485253
A prospective double blind study using oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction
Abstract
This prospective double blind study was undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of oral vs vaginal misoprostol in equivalent doses (50 microg) for induction of labour. A total of 128 term pregnancies with indication for induction of labour were allocated to two groups to receive 50 microg misoprostol orally or vaginally, every 4 h until adequate contractions were achieved or a maximum of 200 microg dose. Induction to delivery interval was significantly shorter in the vaginal group compared with the oral group (14.6 h vs 22.5 h; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to mode of delivery, neonatal outcome and maternal side-effects. However, the incidence of abnormal contractility pattern was more common in the vaginal group (10/68, 14.6%) as compared with the oral group (4/60, 6.6%) (p = 0.146).
Similar articles
-
Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004 Oct;30(5):358-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00215.x. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004. PMID: 15327448 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Jul;280(1):19-24. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0843-9. Epub 2008 Nov 26. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009. PMID: 19034471 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labor.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):911-5. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.117358. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001. PMID: 11641677 Clinical Trial.
-
Misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor: a delivery system with accurate dosing and rapid discontinuation.Womens Health (Lond). 2014 Jan;10(1):29-36. doi: 10.2217/whe.13.49. Womens Health (Lond). 2014. PMID: 24328596 Review.
-
[Misoprostol in gynecology--utilization, role and adverse effects].Ginekol Pol. 2003 Jan;74(1):3-5. Ginekol Pol. 2003. PMID: 12715430 Review. Polish. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 13;2014(6):CD001338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. PMID: 24924489 Free PMC article.
-
Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 22;6(6):CD014484. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34155622 Free PMC article.
-
Labor Induction with Orally Administrated Misoprostol: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:6840592. doi: 10.1155/2017/6840592. Epub 2017 Sep 18. Biomed Res Int. 2017. PMID: 29124067 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023 Sep;308(3):727-775. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9. Epub 2022 Dec 6. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023. PMID: 36472645 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources