Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2004 October;56(5) > Minerva Ginecologica 2004 October;56(5):413-8





A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology

Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index




Minerva Ginecologica 2004 October;56(5):413-8

language: Italian

Dinoprostone: slow release vaginal insert (Propess) and intracervical gel (Prepidil) for the induction of labour with unriped cervix

Grignaffini A., Soncini E., Anfuso S., Ronzoni E.


Aim. The purpose of the present study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of a slow release vaginal PGE2 insert (Propess) with intracervical PGE2 gel (Prepidil gel) in the induction of cervical ripening and labour.
Methods. For the induction of labour we selected 103 single pregnancies at term presenting a Bishop score of less than 5. Fifty-one were induced with Propess, and 52 with intracervical Prepidil.
Results. The 2 groups were homogeneous as regards indications to induction and obstetric characteristics. The success of induction (achievement of uncomplicated vaginal delivery) was comparable in the 2 groups: Propess 67%, Prepidil 65%. The times needed to induce labour were on average longer with Propess (16 h 59 min) than with Prepidil (12 h 54 min), (p<0.05); nevertheless the time needed to achieve delivery by the vaginal route within 24 hours was comparable (49% vs 48%). The number of patients requiring more than one application of prostaglandin was less in the Propess group (5.9%) than in the Prepidil group (55.8%) (p<0.001). The times relative to dilation and expulsion did not differ significantly. Resort to cesarean section for fetal indication (cardiotocographic changes) was greater in inductions with Prepidil (8 cases) compared to Propess (2 cases), p<0.05.
Conclusion. The systems proved equally effective, nevertheless Propess seems to be safer thanks to the lower incidence of cardiotocographic changes such as to indicate urgent cesarean section. Propess would seem to be more acceptable on the part of patients thanks to the smaller number of applications necessary.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail