A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LOW DOSE ORAL MISOPROSTOL VERSUS VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR INDUCTION OF LABOUR

Dr. Rajni Gautam, Dr. Sushila Kharakwal, Dr. Sanjaya Sharma, Dr. Gouher Fatima

Abstract


Introduction: Misoprostol is a new promising agent for cervical ripening and induction of labour. The ideal dose, route and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation. Although, vaginal application of misoprostol has been validated as a reasonable mean of induction, there is a patient resistance to digital examination and there is a risk of ascending infection. For this reason, oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction has been tried.

Aims: To compare the effect of low dose oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol administration for induction of labour at term.

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh (India) from September 2017 to July 2019. The study was approved by the college Ethical.

Results: There were 220 women in the oral and 180 women in the vaginal misoprostol groups. The mean induction to delivery interval in this study was found to be in Group I mean was 13.83 hours with in Group II mean was 11.9 hours.

Conclusion: Oral and vaginal route of administration of misoprostol for induction of labour are equally effective for induction of labour, Number of doses of misoprostol used in vaginal route of administration, was significantly lesser compared to oral route, There was no difference in induction to delivery interval between the two routes of administration of misoprostol,  There was no difference in fetal and maternal complications in both groups., There was no difference in outcome of labour in both groups.


Keywords


Induction of labor, Prostaglandins, Uterine contractions

Full Text:

PDF

References


SOGC Clinical practice guidelines, 2001.

Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. American Family Physician. 2003;67(10):2123–2128.

with the onset,David James, Philip Steer.0 - Induction of Labor and Termination of the Previable Pregnancy.Online publication date: October 2017.Publisher: Cambridge University Press pp 1709-1749.

Ashalatha Shetty, Peter Danielian, Allan Templeton. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labour at term. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology March 2001, Vol. 108, pp. 238±243

Shi-Yann Cheng, MD, Ho Ming, MD, and Jui-Chi Lee, MD. Titrated Oral Compared With Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:119–25.

Rozina Rasheed, Azra Ahsan Alam, Shehnaz Younus, Farahnaz Raza. Oral versus vaginal Misoprostol for labour induction. J Pak Med Assoc; Vol 57;Issue 8;404-7pp.

Janice S. Kwon, Gregory A.L. Davies*, V. Paul Mackenzie. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomised trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology January 2001, Vol. 108, pp. 23±26


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.