A comparative study of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMehta, Raj M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPatel, Babulal S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShah, Akshay C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJani, Shashwat K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPatel, Vismay B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPatel, Adwait B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorShah, Jui Rakeshen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-16T08:05:13Z
dc.date.available2020-10-16T08:05:13Z
dc.date.issued2020-06
dc.description.abstractBackground: Induction of labour defined as artificial initiation of uterine contractions before the onset of spontaneous labour, after the period of viability, by any methods. The successful outcome depends on the Bishop Score, maternal age and parity. Authors compared the most preferred two routes; vaginal and oral for induction and outcome, adverse events and side effects were noted.Methods: This was a prospective comparative study carried out at SVPIMSR, Ahmedabad, from January 2019 to June 2019, Gujarat, 100 patients who required induction were randomly divided in two groups- Group A received 25µg oral misoprostol, Group B - received 25µg vaginal misoprostol repeated 4 hourly up to maximum five doses in both groups. The induction to delivery interval, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcome and complications were observed.Results: The mean induction to delivery interval was less in vaginal group than oral (18.7 hours in vaginal versus 22.4 hours in oral). Vaginal delivery and caesarean section rates were comparable in both groups. 60% patients in Group A required more than two doses as compared to 36% in Group B. No major complications or adverse events were observed.Conclusions: Both oral misoprostol in a dose of 25μg and vaginal misoprostol 25μg every four hours, to a maximum of five doses, have safety and efficacy for induction. With The vaginal route, delivery occurs in less time and few doses required as compared to oral.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt N. H. L. Municipal Medical College, SVPIMSR, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.citationMehta Raj M., Patel Babulal S., Shah Akshay C., Jani Shashwat K., Patel Vismay B., Patel Adwait B., Shah Jui Rakesh. A comparative study of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020 Jun; 9(6): 2520-2524en_US
dc.identifier.issn2320-1770
dc.identifier.issn2320-1789
dc.identifier.placeIndiaen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://imsear.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/207784
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherMedip Academyen_US
dc.relation.issuenumber6en_US
dc.relation.volume9en_US
dc.source.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20202341en_US
dc.subjectInduction of labouren_US
dc.subjectMisoprostolen_US
dc.subjectOral routeen_US
dc.subjectUterine contractionsen_US
dc.subjectVaginal routeen_US
dc.titleA comparative study of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol for induction of labouren_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ijrcog2020v9n6p2520.pdf
Size:
159.88 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology