Dr Purvi Khatri


AIM & OBJECTIVE: Labor is the final consequence of pregnancy and is an inevitable event. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety of low dose vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone gel for induction of labor at term.

METHODS: The study was conducted at AVBRH, DMIMS on 262 pregnant women with term pregnancy after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study was divided into two groups on the basis of induction drug given to the patient. Group A received Misoprostol 25μg at every 6 hours to a maximum of five doses; while Group B received 0.5mg dinoprostone gel every six hourly for a maximum of three doses. Outcome such as mode of delivery and induction delivery interval; side effects of drug were assessed in both the groups.

RESULT: There was no significant difference in the mode of delivery between the groups. Incidence of Vaginal delivery, LSCS and instrumental delivery were similar in both the groups (70.23% & 67.18%, 22.90% & 26.72%, 6.87% & 6.11%). The mean induction delivery interval is less in misoprostol group (13.83±5.41 hours & 18.29±6.17, p-0.0001).  Requirement of oxytocin augmentation was less in Misoprostol group (44.27% & 72.52% in group A & B respectively). No significant difference was observed in indication of caesarean section and side effects in both the groups (p-0.23, 0.16)

CONCLUSION: Low dose vaginal Misoprostol is as efficacious thanDinoprostone gel for induction of labor at term.


Misoprostol tablet, Dinoprostone gel

Full Text:



WHO re commendations for Induction of labor. World Health Organization 2011. Available from: whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf.

Shibira MV. One Year Randomized trial comparing oral V/s vaginal Misoprostol tablets for induction of labour in term pregnancies. J of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2006; 25: 1-106.

ACOG committee opinion. New US Food and drug administration labeling of cytotec (misoprostol) use in pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;82:137-38.

ACOG Practice Bulletin number 107, August 2009. Induction of Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2):386-97.

Crane JM, Butler B, Young DC, Hannah ME. Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labor induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: a systematic review. BJOG. 2006;113:1366–76

Girija S, Manjunath A P. A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Low Dose VaginalMisoprostol and Dinoprostone Gel for Labor Induction. J of ObstetGynecol India. 2011;61(2): 153 – 60.

Nanda S, Singhal SR, Papneja A. Induction of labor with intravaginal misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel: a comparative study. Trop Doct. 2007;37:21–24

Kumari S, Biswas AK, Giri G. A randomized prospective clinical trial comparing intravaginaldinoprostone gel and misoprostol vaginal tablets as a method of induction of labour

Meyer M, Pflum J, Howard D. Outpatient misoprostol compared with dinoprostone gel for preinduction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics &Gynecology. 2005 Mar 1;105(3):466-72.

Parmar M, Aherwar R, Jahan I. Comparative study of 25 µg vaginal misoprostol v/s cerviprime gel for induction of labour at term. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017 Feb 10;3(4):887-92.


  • There are currently no refbacks.