Published: 2020-03-25

A prospective randomized comparative study of the efficacy of sustained release vaginal insert versus intracervical gel in primigravidae at term pregnancy

Thejaswi R. Thupakula, Bela Makhija, Arpana Haritwal



Background: Induction of labour is the intentional initiation of labour before spontaneous onset for the purpose of delivery of fetoplacental unit. Failure of induction is responsible for increased incidence of caesarean delivery. This study performed to assess and compare the clinical effects of sustained release vaginal insert versus intracervical gel in primiparous women with term pregnancy in terms of improvement of Bishop’s score, Induction delivery interval, incidence of hyperstimulation, maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods: A total 100 consecutive term pregnant women who underwent labor induction for fetal or maternal indications were divided randomly into two groups. Group A - sustained release Vaginal insert and Group B - Intracervical gel. Informed consent was taken from each patient.

Results: Statistically significant increase in final Bishop’s score (p=0.008) and hyperstimulation (p=0.04) was seen in Vaginal insert group as compared to Intracervical gel group, while there were no statistically significant differences in maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes and need for oxytocin augmentation in both groups.

Conclusions: In this study we found that insert did not improve the induction delivery interval or rate of successful induction, nor did it have any advantage in terms of neonatal outcome although it did improve the Bishops score – Its advantage was in terms of single application, few prevaginal examinations, longer duration of action and immediate retrieval in case of hyperstimulation. Its main drawback remained the maintenance of cold chain without which its efficacy decreases. Another significant observation was the dropout rate of insert (16%).


Bishops score, Dinoprostone, Hyperstimulation, Induction of labor

Full Text:



Rayburn WF. Clinical experience with a controlled-release, prostaglandin E2 intravaginal insert in the USA. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104 Suppl 15:8-12.

Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;CD003101.

Keirse MJNC. Natural prostaglandins for induction of labor and preinduction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:609-26.

Kelly AJ, Malik S, Smith L, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;CD003101.

Wieland D, Friedman F. Comparing two dinoprostone agents for preinduction cervical ripening at term. A randomized trial. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:724-8.

Chyu JK, Strassner HT. Prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of Cervidil versus Prepidil. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:606-11.

Westgate J, William JA. Evaluation of `Propess-RS’ : Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and convenience of `Propess-RS’ in the induction of labour. In: Calder AA, Keirse MJNC, MacKenzie IZ eds. Propess-RS Ð A Clinical Review. Haslemere, Euromed; 1995.

Lyrenäs S, Clason I, Ulmsten U. In vivo controlled release of PGE2 from a vaginal insert (0.8 mm, 10 mg) during induction of labour. BJOG. 2001;108:169-78.

Mukhopadhyay M, Lim KJH, Fairlie FM. Is propess a better method of induction of labour in nulliparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22:294-5.

Ottinger WS, Menard MK, Brost BC. A randomized clinical trial of prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel and a slow release vaginal pessary for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:349-53.

Facchinetti F, Venturini P, Verocchi G, Volpe A. Comparison of two preparations of dinoprostone for pre-induction of labour in nulliparous women with very unfavourable cervical condition: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2005;119:189-93.

Westgate J, Williams JA. Evaluation of a controlled release vaginal prostaglandin E2 pessary with a retrieval system for the induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;14:146-50.

Trofatter KF, Bowers D, Gall SA, Killam AP. Pre-induction cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 (Prepidil) gel. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;153(3):268-71.

Marconi AM, Bozzetti P, Morabito A, et al. Comparing two dinoprostone agents for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstat Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;138:135-40.

Mazouni C, Provensal M, Ménard JP. Utilisation du dispositif vaginal Propess® dans le déclenchement du travail: efficacité et innocuité. Gynéco Obstét Fertil. 2006;34:489-92.

Pevzner L, Alfirevic Z, Powers BL. Cardiotocographic abnormalities associated with misoprostol and dinoprostone cervical ripening and labor induction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156:144-8.

Stewart JD, Rayburn WF, Farmer KC, Liles EM, Schipul Jr AH, Stanley JR. Effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel (Prepidil), with immediate oxytocin, versus vaginal insert (Cervidil) for induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(5):1175-80.

Triglia MT, Palamara F, Lojacono A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of 24-hour vaginal dinoprostone pessary compared to gel for induction of labor in term pregnancies with a Bishop score ≤ 4. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:651-7.

Witter FR, Rocco LE, Johnson TRB. A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:830-4.

Hennessey MH, Rayburn WF, Stewart JD, Liles EC. Pre-eclampsia and induction of labor: a randomized comparison of prostaglandin E2 as an intracervical gel, with oxytocin immediately, or as a sustained-release vaginal insert. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1204-9.

Miller AM, Rayburn WF, Smith CV. Patterns of uterine activity after intravaginal prostaglandin E2 during pre-induction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:1006-9.

Vollebregt A, van’t Hof DB, Exalto N. Prepidil compared to Propess for cervical ripening. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;104:116-9.

Strobelt N, Meregalli V, Ratti M. Randomized study on removable PGE2 vaginal insert versus PGE2 cervical gel for cervical priming and labor induction in low-Bishop-score pregnancy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2006; 85: 302–305.

El-Shawarby SA, Connell RJ. Induction of labour at term with vaginal prostaglandins preparations: A randomised controlled trial of Prostin versus Propess. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26:627-30.

Rugarn O, Tipping D, Powers B, Wing DA. Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event. An Inter J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;124:796-803.

Smith CV, Rayburn WF, Miller AM. Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and initiation of labor. Comparison of a multidose gel and single, controlled-release pessary. J Reprod Med. 1994;39:381-4.