Efficacy of 50µg oral misoprostol versus 25µg vaginal misoprostol in induction of labor


  • Beenakumari R. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Goverment Medical College Kottayam, Kerala, India
  • Radhamani Mavunkal Viswanathan Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Goverment Medical College Kottayam, Kerala, India
  • Nithya R. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Goverment Medical College Kottayam, Kerala, India




Keywords, MeSH-labor induction, Oral misoprostol, Pregnancy, Vaginal misoprostol


Background: Misoprostol is the latest drug for induction of labour which is cheap and stable at room temperature. Our study was conducted to test the efficacy of misoprostol for labor induction through oral and vaginal route.

Methods: 250 women who required induction of labor at Govt. Medical College, Kottayam was included in this study. Both oral misoprostol 50µg and vaginal misoprostol 25µg 4 hourly upto maximum of four doses were used for induction of labor as per consultant’s preference. Out of these 125 patients were selected for study in both groups. Singleton term pregnancies with cephalic presentation were selected. The mean induction pain interval, induction delivery interval, mode of delivery, maternal complications like uterine contraction abnormalities, neonatal complications were observed.

Results: Induction to pain interval was shorter in oral misoprostol group compared to vaginal misoprostol group (2.48+1.3 hours vs. 3.91+2.17 hours P ≤0.001). But the mean induction to delivery interval was comparable in both groups (12.98±3.04hrs vs. 12.59±3.28 hrs.) Vaginal delivery and cesarean section rate in both groups were comparable. The oral group required more number of misoprostol (>2 misoprostol 38.4% in oral 25.6% in vaginal p=0.030). There was insignificant increased incidence of uterine hyperstimulation in vaginal group. The neonatal outcome was comparable.

Conclusions: Misoprostol administered either by oral or vaginal route was equally effective in induction of labor and found to be safe.


Ramsey PS, Ogburn PL Jr, Harris DY, Heise RH, Ramin KD. Effect of vaginal PH on efficacy of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(6):1616-9.

Sanchez Ramos,Luis MD, Kauntiz, Andrew M MD: Cervical ripening and labour induction. Clinic Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;43(3):475-88.

Hof Mayer GJ, Gul mezogln AM, Alfirevic Z. Misoprostol for induction of labour: A systematic review. Br J Obstect Gynaecol. 1999;106:798-803.

Adovir CD, Jonathan WW, Scott B, Michael E. Oral or vaginal misoprostol administration for induction of labor: a randonised double blind trial. Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;92(5):810-13.

Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption Kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstect Gynecol. 1997;90(1):88-92.

Rehman H, Pradhar A, Kharka L, Renjhen P, Kar S, Dutta S. Comparative evaluation of 50 g oral misoprostol and 25g intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomised trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;35(5):408-16.

Rasheed R, Alam AA, Younus S, Raza F. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. J Pak Med Assoc. 2007;57(8):404-7.

Hall R Duarte-Gardea M, Harlass F. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(6):1044-8.

Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labor at term. BJOG. 2001;108(3):238-43.






Original Research Articles