Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India
Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 5/2011

01-10-2011 | Original Article

A Comparison of Vaginal vs. Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor–Double Blind Randomized Trial

Authors: Promila Jindal, Kumkum Avasthi, Maninder Kaur

Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India | Issue 5/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare efficacy and safety of 50 μgm misoprostol vaginal with oral for labor induction.

Methods

110 women at term gestation, Bishop score ≤4, with various indications for labor induction were randomized and double blinded. After decoding 51 women had received misoprostol orally and 52 vaginally, four hourly (maximum six doses) or till woman went into active labor.

Results

Statistical analysis was done with SPSS 11.0. In vaginal misoprostol group induction delivery interval was significantly less (9.79 vs. 16.47 h) and successful induction was significantly higher (90.38 vs. 74.51%) than oral group, with in 24 h of induction. As for as dose required is concerned in vaginal group 40.38% women needed two doses for delivery, in contrast 35.29% in oral group maximum six doses were required.

Conclusion

Vaginal route of misoprostol is more effective labor inducing agent than oral.
Literature
1.
Latika S, Biswajit C. Comparison of prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) with prostagladin E2 (dinoprostone) for labour induction. J Obstet Gynecol 2nd. 2004;54:139–42.
2.
Gemund NV, Seherjon S, Classie SL, et al. A randomized trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111:42–9.CrossRef
3.
Chuck J, Huffaker BJ. Labour induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical PGE2 gel (prepidil gel): randomized comparison. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;173:137–42.CrossRef
4.
Drug Review. Misoprostol an old drug, new indications. Br J Postgrad Med. 2002; 48 (4): 336-9.
5.
Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. A comparison or oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labour at term. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;100:238–43.CrossRef
6.
How HY, Leasebevrge L, Khoury JC, et al. A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labour. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;185:911–5.CrossRef
7.
Wing DA, Paul RH. A comparison of different dosing regimens of vaginally administered misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening and labour induction. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;175:158–64.CrossRef
8.
Nagai SW, Chan YM, Lam SW, et al. Labour characteristics and uterine activity: misoprostol compared with oxytocin in women at term with pre labour rupture of membranes. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;107:222–7.CrossRef
9.
Jindal P, Avasthi K, Bala T. A comparison of vaginal misoprostol verus Foley’s Catheter with oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2007;57:42–7.
10.
Evert K, Powers B, Robertson S, et al. Controlled release misoprostol vaginal insert in parous women for labour induction. Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;108:1130–7.CrossRef
11.
Wing DA, Fasett MJ, Guberman C, et al. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol to intravenous oxytocin for labour induction in women with favourable cervical examinations. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;190:1689–96.CrossRef
12.
Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC, et al. A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol vs. Foleys catheter and oxytocin for induction of labour at term. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;181:1108–12.CrossRef
13.
Blanchette HA, Nayak S, Erasmus S. Comparison of the safety & efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) with those of Dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening & induction of labor in a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;180:1551–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of Vaginal vs. Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor–Double Blind Randomized Trial
Authors
Promila Jindal
Kumkum Avasthi
Maninder Kaur
Publication date
01-10-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 0971-9202
Electronic ISSN: 0975-6434
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-011-0081-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 5/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

Hysterectomy…..Which Route?

Original Article

Nifedipine Versus Ritodrine for Suppression of Preterm Labor and Analysis of Side Effects

Milestones

Indian Contribution to Obstetrics & Gynecology

Case Report

Meconium Pseudocyst and Ileal Atresia Secondary to Intrauterine Intussusception

Recommendations

Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Iron Deficiency Anemia in Pregnancy (IDA) in Pregnancy in India

Original Article

Evaluation of Post Partum Depression in a Tertiary Hospital