Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant disease

2020
journal article
article
cris.lastimport.scopus2024-04-07T17:09:01Z
dc.abstract.enObjectives: Induction of labour is a part of an active prenatal care nowadays and the ideal method of that procedure still remains to be identified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of misoprostol vaginal insert as compared to dinoprostone gel for delivery induction in pregnant women without any comorbidities. Material and methods: It was a retrospective cohort study of 240 pregnant women. The primary study outcome was successful delivery. Other analysed parameters included time to delivery of a baby, time to the beginning of the first stage of labour, time to vaginal delivery, and duration of all delivery stages. We compared both methods regarding maternal complications during and after delivery. We also reviewed neonatal outcomes such as birth weight, birth length and 1-minute Apgar scores. Results: The patients’ basic characteristics were similar regarding their age, gravidity, parity, height, weight and Bishop score. Time to any delivery and to the onset of a labour in the misoprostol group versus in the dinoprostone group was 14.5 vs 35.6 h (p < 0.001) and 9.9 h vs 25.3 h (p < 0.001) respectively. The chance of the beginning of labour and the baby’s delivery over time has been observed to be approximately two times higher for misoprostol as compared to dinoprostone. Conclusions: Our study showed that using misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison to dinoprostone seems to shorten the time to beginning of the first stage of labour as well as the time to the delivery itself. Some lower Apgar scores observed in the misoprostol group requires further investigation.pl
dc.affiliationWydział Lekarski : Klinika Położnictwa i Perinatologiipl
dc.affiliationWydział Lekarski : Zakład Epidemiologiipl
dc.cm.date2021-03-01
dc.cm.id102651
dc.contributor.authorGornisiewicz, Teresapl
dc.contributor.authorKuśmierska-Urban, Katarzyna - 140799 pl
dc.contributor.authorHuras, Hubert - 129736 pl
dc.contributor.authorGałaś, Aleksander - 129446 pl
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-01T16:50:38Z
dc.date.available2021-03-01T16:50:38Z
dc.date.issued2020pl
dc.date.openaccess0
dc.description.accesstimew momencie opublikowania
dc.description.number12pl
dc.description.physical726-732pl
dc.description.points40
dc.description.versionostateczna wersja wydawcy
dc.description.volume91pl
dc.identifier.doi10.5603/GP.2020.0119pl
dc.identifier.eissn2543-6767pl
dc.identifier.issn0017-0011pl
dc.identifier.projectROD UJ / OPpl
dc.identifier.urihttps://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/266130
dc.languageengpl
dc.language.containerengpl
dc.rightsUdzielam licencji. Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowa*
dc.rights.licenceCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.pl*
dc.share.typeotwarte czasopismo
dc.subject.enmisoprostolpl
dc.subject.endinoprostonepl
dc.subject.eninduction of laborpl
dc.subtypeArticlepl
dc.titleComparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant diseasepl
dc.title.journalGinekologia Polskapl
dc.typeJournalArticlepl
dspace.entity.typePublication
Affiliations

* The migration of download and view statistics prior to the date of April 8, 2024 is in progress.

Views
0
Views per month