These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A randomised double-blind study of vaginal misoprostol vs dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction in prolonged pregnancy.
    Author: Lee HY.
    Journal: Singapore Med J; 1997 Jul; 38(7):292-4. PubMed ID: 9339095.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Dinoprostone, is presently used in our standard protocol for cervical ripening and labour induction. In search for a cheaper alternative, misoprostol has been found to be a good substitute. In view of the potential saving it might offer, we set out to test its efficacy against the standard dinoprostone. METHODS: A randomised double-blind study involving 50 pregnant women with prolonged pregnancy, treated at a government hospital in Malaysia, was carried out. Two hundred micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol were compared with 3 mg of dinoprostone in each treatment arm. RESULTS: In the misoprostol group, labour was successfully established in 92% of cases compared to 64% in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.04). The induction-delivery interval was shorter with more women delivering within 12 hours (72% vs 28%, p = 0.047). Maternal and neonatal complications, mode of delivery, the need for oxytocin and pethidine were quite similar statistically. Polysystole was more frequent (28% vs 12%, p = 0.28) in the misoprostol group but it was not associated with fetal distress. CONCLUSION: The study showed that misoprostol was a more effective drug in labour induction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]