Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone Gel for Induction in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes at Term

Jonna Malathi, Venigalla Sunita


Background: The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone gel for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes at term pregnancy.

Methods: This is a prospective study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at Sri Devraj Urs Medical College from December 2010 to September 2012. One hundred patients were induced with either misoprostol or dinoprostone gel using computer-generated randomized table. The study had two groups. Group I had 50 cases of primigravida, where 25 cases were induced with misoprostol and another 25 were induced with dinoprostone gel. Group II had 50 cases of multigravida, where 25 cases were induced with misoprostol and the rest 25 were induced with dinoprostone gel. Twenty-five microgram misoprostol was inserted vaginally every sixth hourly for maximum of six doses and 0.5 mg dinoprostone gel was used intracervically every sixth hourly for maximum of three doses. The primary outcome measured was induction to delivery interval and the secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcome.

Results: Among the patients induced, both the groups were comparable with respect to age, parity, booking status, gestational age, and pre-induction Bishops score. There was no significant difference in induction to delivery interval between both the groups. The induction to delivery interval in misoprostol group was 6.65 hours and that in dinoprostone group was 6.89 hours. In primigravida, the induction to delivery interval in misoprostol group was 7.74 hours and 7.08 hours in dinoprostone group and in multigravida, the induction to delivery interval in misoprostol group was 5.55 hours and in dinoprostone group was 6.71 hours. In primigravida, dinoprostone has shorter induction to delivery interval compared to misoprostol. In multigravida, misoprostol has shorter induction to delivery interval compared to dinoprostone. There was no difference in mode of delivery in both the groups. There was no significant difference in maternal outcome and neonatal outcome among both the groups.

Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol is equally efficacious in labor induction and demonstrates a similar fetal and maternal safety profile when compared with dinoprostone gel.

J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2015;4(4):302-306



Prelabor rupture of membranes; Induction of labor; Misoprostol; Dinoprostone gel; Induction delivery interval; Failed induction; Chorioamnionitis; Oxytocin

Full Text: HTML PDF

Browse  Journals  


Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics






Journal of Clinical Gynecology & Obstetrics, quarterly, ISSN 1927-1271 (print), 1927-128X (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal, the authors retain the copyright, the journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)

This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website:   editorial contact:
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.