A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Vaginal Dinoprostone Pessary with Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel for Pre-induction Cervical Ripening.

IF 0.5 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Mamta Kumari Chaudhary, Vanita Suri, Rashmi Bagga, Aashima Arora, Jogender Kumar, Vanita Jain
{"title":"A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Vaginal Dinoprostone Pessary with Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel for Pre-induction Cervical Ripening.","authors":"Mamta Kumari Chaudhary, Vanita Suri, Rashmi Bagga, Aashima Arora, Jogender Kumar, Vanita Jain","doi":"10.1007/s13224-025-02222-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare safety and efficacy of vaginal dinoprostone pessary with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening at term.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A hundred women with singleton pregnancies requiring labor induction with a Bishop score of ≤ 6 with intact membranes and no previous Cesarean Section (CS) were randomized to the pessary or gel group. All patients underwent assessment at baseline and every 8 h thereafter, along with the grading of discomfort noted on the visual analog scale (VAS). Pessary was kept for a maximum of 24 h, and the gel was inserted 8 hourly (maximum 3 doses).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pessary group needed fewer assessments during the induction process (2.24 ± 0.82 vs. 2.58 ± 0.61, <i>p</i> = 0.004<sup>**</sup>). The change in Bishop's score after 8 h was significantly higher in the pessary group (2.69 ± 1.42 vs. 1.81 ± 1.26, <i>p</i> = 0.006<sup>**</sup>). The pessary group had a considerably better VAS score 2.54 ± 1.13 vs. 3.18 ± 1.24, <i>p</i> = 0.004<sup>**</sup>), depicting better tolerance of pessary. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of induction to delivery interval (IDI), mode of delivery, duration of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stage of labor, type of rupture of membrane, need for intervention, and the indication for intervention. The rate of CS was higher in the gel group, though the difference was not statistically significant. The neonatal outcomes showed no difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dinoprostone vaginal pessary is faster and better tolerated than cervical gel for cervical ripening at term. The IDI, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in pessary versus gel groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India","volume":"76 3","pages":"248-257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13294396/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-025-02222-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare safety and efficacy of vaginal dinoprostone pessary with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening at term.

Methods: A hundred women with singleton pregnancies requiring labor induction with a Bishop score of ≤ 6 with intact membranes and no previous Cesarean Section (CS) were randomized to the pessary or gel group. All patients underwent assessment at baseline and every 8 h thereafter, along with the grading of discomfort noted on the visual analog scale (VAS). Pessary was kept for a maximum of 24 h, and the gel was inserted 8 hourly (maximum 3 doses).

Results: The pessary group needed fewer assessments during the induction process (2.24 ± 0.82 vs. 2.58 ± 0.61, p = 0.004**). The change in Bishop's score after 8 h was significantly higher in the pessary group (2.69 ± 1.42 vs. 1.81 ± 1.26, p = 0.006**). The pessary group had a considerably better VAS score 2.54 ± 1.13 vs. 3.18 ± 1.24, p = 0.004**), depicting better tolerance of pessary. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of induction to delivery interval (IDI), mode of delivery, duration of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stage of labor, type of rupture of membrane, need for intervention, and the indication for intervention. The rate of CS was higher in the gel group, though the difference was not statistically significant. The neonatal outcomes showed no difference.

Conclusion: Dinoprostone vaginal pessary is faster and better tolerated than cervical gel for cervical ripening at term. The IDI, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in pessary versus gel groups.

一项比较阴道内迪诺前列石托和宫颈内迪诺前列石凝胶诱导宫颈成熟的随机对照试验。
目的:比较阴道内滴入迪诺前列石与宫颈内滴入迪诺前列石凝胶用于足月宫颈成熟的安全性和有效性。方法:100例Bishop评分≤6分、无剖宫产史(CS)、需引产的单胎妊娠妇女随机分为子宫托组和凝胶组。所有患者在基线时和之后每8小时进行一次评估,并在视觉模拟量表(VAS)上记录不适程度。子宫托最多保存24小时,凝胶每8小时注入一次(最多3次)。结果:子宫托组诱导过程中评估次数较少(2.24±0.82比2.58±0.61,p = 0.004**)。子宫托组8 h后Bishop’s评分变化明显高于对照组(2.69±1.42∶1.81±1.26,p = 0.006**)。子宫托组VAS评分(2.54±1.13比3.18±1.24,p = 0.004**)明显较好,说明子宫托耐受性较好。两组在引产间隔(IDI)、分娩方式、第一、第二、第三产程持续时间、胎膜破裂类型、干预需要、干预适应证等方面差异均无统计学意义。凝胶组CS发生率较高,但差异无统计学意义。新生儿结局无差异。结论:阴道托诺前列石比宫颈凝胶更快、耐受性更好,可促进足月宫颈成熟。子宫托组和凝胶组的IDI、分娩方式、孕产妇和新生儿结局相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India (JOGI) is the official journal of the Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology Societies of India (FOGSI). This is a peer- reviewed journal and features articles pertaining to the field of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal is published six times a year on a bimonthly basis. Articles contributed by clinicians involved in patient care and research, and basic science researchers are considered. It publishes clinical and basic research of all aspects of obstetrics and gynecology, community obstetrics and family welfare and subspecialty subjects including gynecological endoscopy, infertility, oncology and ultrasonography, provided they have scientific merit and represent an important advance in knowledge. The journal believes in diversity and welcomes and encourages relevant contributions from world over. The types of articles published are: ·         Original Article·         Case Report ·         Instrumentation and Techniques ·         Short Commentary ·         Correspondence (Letter to the Editor) ·         Pictorial Essay
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书