Oral Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction

A Comparison of Orally Administered Misoprostol With Vaginally Administered Misoprostol For Cervical Ripening And Labour Induction

“…Nausea,vomiting This result is similar to the study finding of Hall et al 10 where parity was also different P(0.04). Pregnant women inthis study were selected at random.…”

“…Eclampsia or Preeclampsis and Intra uterine growth restriction were next common causes. In a similar type of study by Hall et al 10 , it was seen that the main induction indication was post dated pregnancy. Uterine hypertonicity 10 9…”

The routine use of oxytocin after oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with an unfavourable cervix is not of benefit

“…20 Using 25 µg every 3-4 h vaginally, fewer doses (1.8) were needed to initiate contractions but with more contraction abnormalities (8%) than the present study. 21 Oxytocin augmentation was required by 77% in group 1, which was comparable to a similar oral regimen (25 µg every 4 h, 74% required oxytocin) 10 and higher than some regimens using 25 µg vaginally (44-89%) 21-23 or a higher oral dose (50 µg every 3-6 h, 16-75%). 6,[16][17][18] Routine oxytocin addition after two doses (group 2) resulted in more women receiving the maximum oxytocin dose of 64 mU/min (66 vs. 36% in group 1); possibly unnecessary oxytocin in some (in group 1, 12% did not require oxytocin after two doses) and earlier oxytocin initiation in others, without any impact on IDI or Caesarean section rate.…”

“…Significantly more women needed maximum oxytocin dose in group 2 than in group 1 (66 vs. 36%; P = 0.01). But similar number of women receiving 2 or 3 or ≥ 4 misoprostol doses needed the maximum oxytocin dose in group 1 (30.3 or 40.4 or 33.3%; P = 0.02; NS) 20,21 Thus it appears that increasing the misoprostol dose or reducing the dose interval resulted in more contraction abnormalities without reducing the Caesarean section rate. When compared to a study using 25 µg every 4 h by various routes, the Caesarean section rate in the present study was similar to their vaginal group (17%) but was lower than the 32 and 30% rates reported in their oral and oral plus vaginal groups.…”

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervica lcervigel for induction of labour

“…Hence, they deserve attention as effective pharmacological agents for induction of labour. 6 There are various mechanical and pharmacological methods currently in use for induction of labour, however no single method or agent has been found suitable for all clinical conditions. All available methods are associated with some medical risks.…”