Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Ginecologica 2018 Jan 26



Publication history
Cite this article as


A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology

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



Minerva Ginecologica 2018 Jan 26

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.18.04184-9


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 and Child Health, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy


BACKGROUND: Labor induction (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.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is the comparison between two techniques for induction of Labor (IOL): oral Misoprostol and Propess.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Restrospective study in a single tertiary referral center. Clinical maternal, fetal and neonatal informations were recorded.
RESULTS: 863 women were included. The Vaginal Delivery (VD) rate was significantly higher in the Misoprostol group. The Caesarean Section (CS) 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 - Labor induction - Median time to vaginal delivery - Cesarean section

top of page

Publication History

Article first published online: January 26, 2018
Manuscript accepted: January 11, 2018
Manuscript received: December 4, 2017

Cite this article as

Neri C, Familiari A, Preziosi F, Vassallo C, Botta A, Lanzone A, et al. Oral misoprostol versus intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a comparison study. Minerva Ginecol 2018 Jan 26. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.18.04184-9

Corresponding author e-mail