Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar 4;17(3):e80026.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.80026. eCollection 2025 Mar.

Comparative Study of Vaginal Misoprostol Tablet Versus Dinoprostone Insert in Induction of Labor: A Prospective Interventional Analysis

Vaishnavi Unni  1 , Subhashchandra R Mudanur  2 , Rajasri G Yaliwal  2 , Shreedevi Kori  2
Affiliations

Comparative Study of Vaginal Misoprostol Tablet Versus Dinoprostone Insert in Induction of Labor: A Prospective Interventional Analysis

Vaishnavi Unni et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Introduction Induction of labor (IOL) is an essential obstetric procedure for maternal and fetal safety when continuing pregnancy is risky. Prostaglandin analogs like misoprostol (Prosaglandin E1 (PGE1)) and Dinoprostone (Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)) are commonly used for cervical ripening and labor induction. This study compares the efficacy and safety of vaginal tablet misoprostol versus Dinoprostone insert in the IOL. Materials and methods This prospective, interventional study was conducted at BLDE University, Vijayapura, from April 2023 to February 2025, involving 106 pregnant women at term. Participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 received a 10 mg Dinoprostone vaginal insert, while Group 2 received 25 mcg vaginal misoprostol every four hours. Key outcomes included vaginal delivery rates, cesarean section rates, and maternal and neonatal complications. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Results Vaginal delivery occurred in 39 (73.58%) of the Dinoprostone group compared to 27 (50.94%) in the misoprostol group (p=0.02). The mean induction-to-delivery interval was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (15.2 ± 4.9 hours vs. 18.3 ± 4.29 hours, p<0.001). Maternal complications, including postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), were more common in the misoprostol group 13 (24.5%). Neonatal complications, such as neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and lower Apgar scores, were also significantly higher in the misoprostol group. Conclusion Both misoprostol and Dinoprostone are effective for labor induction, but misoprostol shortens the induction-to-delivery interval at the cost of increased cesarean rates and fetal complications. Dinoprostone, while slower, shows better fetal outcomes and fewer complications, making it a preferable option for high-risk pregnancies. Tailoring the choice of induction agent based on patient-specific factors is essential.

Keywords: dinoprostone; labor induction; misoprostol; prostaglandin; vaginal insert.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Human subjects: Consent for treatment and open access publication was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional Ethics Committee, BLDE, Vijayapura issued approval IEC/896/2022-23. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. CONSORT Flow Diagram
CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Induction of labor: An overview of guidelines. Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2020;75:61–72. - PubMed
    1. Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Patabendige M, Chan F, Vayssiere C, et al. BJOG. 2024;131:1167–1180. - PubMed
    1. Risk factors for labour induction and augmentation: A multicentre prospective cohort study in India. Cheng TS, Zahir F, Carolin SV, et al. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia. 2024;25:100417. - PMC - PubMed
    1. A comparative study of induction of labour with intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Dinoprostone gel and its fetomaternal outcome in a tertiary care hospital. Valvi SS, Airao BB. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2021;8:463–469.
    1. Comparative study of efficacy of misoprostol Vs Dinoprostone gel for induction of labour. Gupta S, Hak J, Kumar D. https://jkscience.org/archives/volume173/4-Original%20Article%20-17(3)%2... JK Science. 2015;17:118–124.

LinkOut - more resources