A comparative study of misoprostol oral versus vaginal route for induction of labour


  • Apratim Mohan DebBarma Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Agartala Govt. Medical College, Agartala, Tripura, India
  • Jahar Lal Baidya Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Agartala Govt. Medical College, Agartala, Tripura, India
  • Debasis Ray Department of Pharmacology, Agartala Govt. Medical College, Agartala, Tripura, India




Induction of labour, Labour, Misoprostol, Oxytocin, Prostaglandin, Vaginal delivery rate


Background: Induction of labour at term is a common obstetric intervention. Prostaglandin E2 has been the agent of choice for pre-induction of cervical ripening for several decades. In recent time, prostaglandin E1 analogue (misoprostol) is a preferred new agent for pre-induction cervical ripening and labour induction owing to inexpensive, stable in room temperature, administrable through several routes. The ideal dose, route, and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation.

Methods: A double blind parallel group placebo control randomized clinical trial was done in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of Agartala Govt. Medical College among 130 pregnant women those required induction of labour. In this clinical trial, the women were allocated by lottery to receive oral misoprostol (25 μg) and vaginal placebo (same dosage) or vaginal misoprostol (25 μg) and oral placebo (same dosage. Both active and placebo drug (25 mcg) were repeated at 4 hours. interval till the parturient reached active labour (not exceeding 5 doses). Both primary (induction delivery interval) and secondary outcomes (failed induction, vaginal/caesarean delivery rate, maternal and foetal complications) were statistically analyzed.

Results: The mean induction delivery interval (primary outcome) differences were insignificant among both groups (oral versus vaginal). Success rate of induction (56.9% versus 75.4%), mean dosage (misoprostol 90.5 mcg versus 96 mcg) requirement, maternal and foetal complications was indifferent among two groups. The rate of vaginal delivery (within 24 hours of induction) was significantly higher when misoprostol was used through vaginal route. Caesarean section rate trends to be higher when misoprostol was administered orally.

Conclusions: Low dose of misoprostol (25 mcg) offer an additional statistically significant clinical advantage in successful vaginal delivery when used vaginally.


Crane JMG, Buttler B, Young DC, Hannah ME. Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavorable cervix: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113:1366-76.

Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labour at term. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:238-43.

Thomas J, Rao S, Ugwumadu A. Prostaglandins in labour in: Arulkumaran S, Penna LK, Rao KB (eds.) The Management of Labour. 2nd ed. Hyderabad. Orient Longman Private Limited; 2007:269-80.

Boulvain M, Kelly AJ, Lohse C, Stan CM, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of systematic reviews 2001;4:Art.no:CD001233.

Rahman H, Pradhan A, Kharka L, Renjhen P, Kar S, Dutta S. Comparative evaluation of 50 microgram oral misoprostol and 25 micrograms intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(5):408-16.

Induction of labour. ACOG Practice Bulletin no 107. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386-97.

Feitosa FEL, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA, Amorim MMR, Passini R. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:91-5.

Gregson S, Waterston M, Norman I, Murrells T. A randomised control trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and Dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:438-44.

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

Cheng SY, Ming H, Lee JC. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;111(1):119-25.

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 Sci. 2009;11(2):75-7.

Jindal P, Avasthi K, Kaur M. A comparison of vaginal vs. oral misoprostol for induction of labour- double blind randomised trial. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2011;61(5):538-42.

Barik S, Datta S, Gupta K (eds.) Misoprostol in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. New Delhi. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd.; 2003:8-15.

Bano K, Mahjabeen Bhutta SZ. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. J Surg Pak Int. 2009;14:38-41.

Kundodyiwa TW, Alfirevic Z, Weeks AD. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2):374-83.

Paungmora N, Herabutya Y, O-Prasertsawat P, Punyavachira P. Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2004;30(5):358-62.

Ngai SW. Clinical uses of misoprostol in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The Hong Kong Medical Diary 2005;10(4):12-6.






Original Research Articles