DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20160495

A cross sectional study to compare effects of mechanical dilatation and sublingual misoprostol on induction of labor in a tertiary level government hospital

Laxmi Maru, Vibhuti Thakur, Kavisha Lambhate

Abstract


Background: To compare sublingual misoprostol versus mechanical dilatation of the cervix with Foley’ catheter in induction of labor, the need for other method of augmentation of labor like oxytocin infusion, to find out maternal outcome and perinatal outcome and to find out rate of caesarean section in both the groups.

Methods: The study was carried out in the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, M.Y. Hospital Indore, on pregnancies with an indication for induction of labor either with mechanical dilatation or with misoprostol. Two groups are made each of 100 cases. One group is induced with Foley’ catheter and other with 25 mcg misoprostol sublingually. Both groups are compared on the basis of age, parity, indication of induction, duration of cervical ripening and delivery, need of oxytocin augmentation. Maternal and foetal outcomes are also compared.

Results: Most of the cases in both groups were primigravida, belong to 20-25 year of age group. Most cases were induced for postdatism followed by PIH. Induction delivery interval was short in cases received misoprostol. Also misoprostol group required less oxytocin augmentation, and has significant low rate of caesarean section. There was no significant difference in both cases in terms of maternal and foetal complications.

Conclusions: Misoprostol is very safe and effective drug for induction of labour. It has property of collagenous remodelling of cervix along with stimulation of uterine contraction. Hence its induction-delivery interval is short with little requirement of oxytocin augmentation. Rate of failed induction is also low.

Keywords


Sublingual misoprostol, Mechanical dilatation of the cervix, Foley’ catheter, Induction of labor

Full Text:

PDF

References


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.

National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Induction of Labour. London, UK: RCOG Press. 2008.

WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. Induction of labour data. Geneva; World health Organization. 2010.

Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King VJ. Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009;116(5):626-36.

Jozwiak SM, Oude RK, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, de Graaf IM. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2011;378:2095-103.

Orhue AA, Ande AB. Induction of labor. In: Okpere EE, ed. Clinical Obstetrics. Benin: University of Benin Press. 2004.

Sciscione AC, Nguyen L, Manley J, Pollock M, Maas B, Colmorgen G. A randomized comparison of transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(4):603-7.

Promila J, Kaur GB, Bala T. A comparison of vaginal misoprostol versus Foley's catheter with oxytocin for induction of labor. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2007;57(1):42-7.

Sheikher C, Suri N, Kholi U. Comparative evaluation of oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol and intracervical Folley's catheter for induction of labour at term. JK Science. 2009;11(2):75-7.

Filho OBM, Albuquerque RM, Cecatti JG. A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2010;89(8):1045-52.

Roudsari FV, Ayati S, Ghasemi M. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2011;10(1):149-54.

Prager M, Eneroth-Grimfors E, Edlund M, Marions L. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2008;115(11):1443-50.

Bhatiyani BR, Shah PS, Kansaria JJ, Parulekar SV. Induction of labour by Foley's Catheter, http://www.bhj.org/journal/2003_4502_april/ induction_297.htm Accessed on 1/8/2004.

Chung JH, Huang WH, Rumney PJ, Garite TJ, Nageotte MP. A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, foley catheter, and combination misoprostol-foley catheter for labor induction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003;189(4):1031-5.