Comparison of oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term


  • Perveena Fareed Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Rehana Rashid Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Saleem A. Wani District Bandipore Hospital, Jammu and Kashmir, India



Labor, Misoprostol, Pre-induction cervical ripening, Apgar score


Background: Preinduction cervical ripening has a great influence on induction of labor. For induction of labor various methods are used. Mechanical methods are Foleys catheter with or without extra-amniotic saline. Various pharmacological methods are misoprostol, dinoprostone, and oxytocin.

Methods: This was a prospective observational study conducted on 100 patients with 50 patients in each group in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Government Medical College, Srinagar from June 2020 to March 2021 over a period of 9 months. Induction with oral misoprostol or vaginal misoprostol was done in respective groups. Various parameters noted were induction delivery interval, number of doses needed, mode of delivery, and fetomaternal outcome.

Results: Average number of doses of misoprostol in oral group was 3.84 and average number of doses in vaginal group was 1.90. Mean induction delivery interval in oral group was 16 hours and 10.94 hours in vaginal group. 32% patients delivered by full-term vaginal delivery (FTVD) in oral group and 18% underwent lower segment caesarean section (LSCS), while as 38% patients in vaginal group had FTVD and only 12% patients underwent LSCS.

Conclusions: Our data supported the fact that induction with vaginal misoprostol can be equally effective in either oral or vaginal route. However, induction with vaginal misoprostol leads to shorter induction delivery interval compared to induction with oral misoprostol. Our study also highlighted the fact that induction with vaginal misoprostol requires lesser doses as compared to that with oral misoprostol. However, there are no significant differences in number of caesareans between the two groups. Difference in neonatal APGAR scores and maternal complications were non-significant in both the groups.


Laws PJ, Sullivan EA. Australia’s Mothers and Babies 2002. AIHW Cat. No. PER 28. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit. Perinatal Statistics Series No.15. 2004.

Crane J, John's NF, Line L, Gregory JR. Induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2001;23:717-28.

Alec S McEwan. Induction of labour Obstetrics. Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2008;18:1-6.

Wolf S, Sanchesz Ramos L, Kaunitz A. Sublingual Misoprostol for labour induction: A randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:365-71.

Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, Perni UC, Romero VC, King VJ et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:84.

Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Systemat Rev. 2001;CD001233.

Ghanaei MM, Sharami H, Asgari A. Labor induction in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial of foley catheter with extraamniotic saline infusion. J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc. 2009;10:71-5.

Niromanesh S, Mosavi-Jarrahi A, Samkhaniani F. Intracervical Foley catheter balloon vs. prostaglandin in preinduction cervical ripening. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;81:23-7.

American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. Instruction of labour with misoprostol. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2000;69:77-8.

Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA, Magann E, Moore LE, Martin JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foleyplus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26(1):33-8.

Stovall TG. Early pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy. In: Berek JS. Break & Novak’s. Gynecology, 14th Ed. Philadelphia: Lipincott, Williams & Wilkins. 2007;601.

Scheepers HCG, Van Erp EJM, Van den Bergh AS. Use ofmisoprostol in first and second trimester abourtion. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1999;54:592-600.

Drug Review. Misoprostol an old drug, new indications. Br J Postgrad Med. 2002;48(4):336-9.

Hokkila E, Kruit H, Rahkonen L, Timonen S, Mattila M, Laatio L, et al. The efficacy of misoprostol vaginal insert compared with oral misoprostol in the induction of labor of nulliparous women: A randomized national multicenter trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2019;98(8):1032-9.

Handal-Orefice RC, Friedman AM, Chouinard SM, Eke AC, Feinberg B, Politch J, et al. Oral or vaginal misoprostol for labor induction and cesarean delivery risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(1):10-6.

Redling K, Schaedelin S, Huhn EA, Hoesli I. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol vaginal insert vs. oral misoprostol for induction of labor. J Perinatal Med. 2018;47(2):176-82.

Mahajan P, Popatrao R. Shitole comparison of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in term obstetric patients for obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(6):2339-46.






Original Research Articles