Induction of labor with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone

Ozgur K., Kizilates A., Uner M., Erman O., Trak B.

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, vol.261, no.1, pp.9-13, 1997 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 261 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 1997
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s004040050190
  • Journal Name: ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.9-13
  • Keywords: misoprostol, dinoprostone, labor induction, complications, FIRST-TRIMESTER PREGNANCY, VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL, CERVICAL DILATATION, FETAL DEATH, AGENT
  • Akdeniz University Affiliated: No

Abstract

Sixty five pregnant women who had the indication for labor induction were randomized in a clinical trial to receive 100 mu g. intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical gel of 0.5 mg dinoprostone. The mean time from induction to delivery for the misoprostol group was 7.6+/-1.9 versus 8.2+/-5.9 (hours+/-SD) for the dinoprostone group. There were no significant differences between groups in gestational age, induced labor rates, type of delivery, fetal outcome and maternal complications. We found that intravaginal misoprostol tablet is as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for inducing second and third trimester labor.