Published: 2017-12-25

Neonatal outcome in randomized controlled trial of low dose oral misoprostol in comparison with intracervical Dinoprostone gel for labour induction

Savithri D. R., Suvarna R., Prashanthi Chennupalli, Akshatha S.


Background: Induction of labour is a therapeutic option when the benefits of delivery outweigh risks of continuing pregnancy. There are several agents for induction of labour to achieve better outcome of labour. Acceptable methods for induction are oxytocin infusion, dinoprostone gel, misoprostol and mechanical cervical dilators. Prostaglandins are the preferred choice in unripened cervix. To study the neonatal outcome in induction of labour with low dose oral misoprostol compared with intracervical dinoprostone gel and also to assess occurrence of meconium staining liquor.

Methods: One hundred women with single live fetus, term gestation, cephalic presentation, reactive fetal heart pattern and Bishops score <6 were included in the study. They were randomized to receive either 6 doses of 25ug oral misoprostol every 3rd hourly or 0.5ug intracervical dinoprostone every 6th hourly for a maximum of 3 doses. Oxytocin was administered. Fetal outcome was assessed in terms of APGAR score, meconium staining and need for NICU.

Results: Meconium stained amniotic fluid was high in misoprostol group (16%) compared to dinoprostone group (8%). NICU admissions were seen in 7 neonates in both groups.

Conclusions: Low dose oral misoprostol is a safe method of labour induction. APGAR and NICU admission rates were comparable in both groups. Meconium staining was more in misoprostol group compared to dinoprostone group.


APGAR, Dinoprostone, Misoprostol, Meconium staining

Full Text:



Witter FR. Cervical ripening and labour. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43(3):469-74.

Goldberg AB, Greenberg MB, Darney PD. Misoprostol and pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:38-47.

Patil Kamal P, Swamy MK, Rao Radhika K. Oral misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India. 2005;55(2):128-31.

Bartha JL, Comino-Delgado R, Garcia-Benasach F, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Moreno-Corral LJ. Oral misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized comparison. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;96(3):465-9.

Kulshreshtha S, Sharma P, Mohan G, Singh SU, Singh SA. Comparative study of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labour. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2007 Jan 20;51(1):55.

Parmar M, Aherwar R, Jahan I. Comparative study of 25 µg vaginal misoprostol v/s cerviprime gel for induction of labour at term. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb 10;3(4):887-92.

Greagson S, Waterstone M, Norman I, Murrells T. A randomized controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term. BJOG. 2005;112:438-44.

Sheela CN, Mhaskar A, George S. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostol gel for induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2007;57(4):327-30.

Patil P, Patil A. Misoprostol v/s Cerviprime Gel for Induction of Labour. Int J Med Res Rev. 2013 Jun 30;1(02).

Soilemetzidis M. The effectiveness of misoprostol or dinoprostone in neonatal outcome after labour induction in post-term nulliparas. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2015;42(5):649-52.

Badlani CN, Shastri SS, Risbud NS. A study of vaginal misoprostol tablet versus intra cervical dinoprostone gel for the induction of labour. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:1404-8.

Papanikolaou EG, Plachouras N, Drougia A, Andronikou S, Vlachou C, Stefos T et al. Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004 Sep 27;2(1):70.