Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2018 August;70(4) > Minerva Ginecologica 2018 August;70(4):378-84

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Ginecologica 2018 August;70(4):378-84

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.18.04184-9

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Oral misoprostol versus intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a comparison study

Caterina NERI , Alessandra FAMILIARI, Francesco PREZIOSI, Chiara VASSALLO, Angela BOTTA, Antonio LANZONE, Brigida CARDUCCI, Alessandro CARUSO

Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Sacro Cuore Catholic University, Agostino Gemelli University Hospital Foundation, Rome, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most common procedures performed in obstetrics, accounting for about the 20% of deliveries in the developed countries and it still represents a challenge to obstetricians. The aim of this study is the comparison between two techniques for IOL: oral misoprostol and Propess®.
METHODS: A retrospective study has been carried out in a single tertiary referral center. Clinical maternal, fetal and neonatal information was recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 863 women were included. the vaginal delivery (VD) rate was significantly higher in the misoprostol group. The cesarean section rate was comparable between groups. Adverse events and neonatal outcomes were comparable between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Misoprostol shows a higher VD rate with fewer patients needing a second type of induction and a shorter time to the onset of active labor and to VD.


KEY WORDS: Misoprostol - Dinoprostone - Induced labor - Cesarean section

top of page