ORAL AND INTRAVAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR LABOR INDUCTION, A RANDOMIZED STUDY

Abstract

Prostaglandins of the F and E series produce strong uterine contractions and therefore have been widely used for the induction of labor in late pregnancy and as abortifacient agents in early pregnancy. The use of natural prostaglandins has been limited by their instability, high cost, rapid metabolism and high incidence of gastrointestinal side effects(Egarter et al., 1990 & Calder, 1999 ). Misoprostol (Cytotec"), a synthetic PGE, analogue, is as effective as dinoprostone for preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor in ·. patients with lowBishop score. Misoprostol is inexpensive, safe and simple to administer because it is placed in the vagina or given orally ( Gherman et al., 2001, Birlain et al., 2001 & Ozan et al., 2001 ). Several studies evaluated the vaginal route of misoprostol for induction of labor. However, only few studies evaluated the oral route for induction of labor and still fewer number of studies compared the oral versus the vaginal routes. The aim of this study is to compare between the vaginal and the oral routes of misoprostol administration for cervical ripening and labor induction. The study included 100 pregnant females with different indications for labor induction. Womenwere enrolled into two groups, each containing 50 women. In the vaginal group, induction of labor was by 50 ug and in the oral group, induction of labor was by 100 ug misoprostol.