A comparison of oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term, at the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Zaria

S. Hauwa, S. Shittu, H. Umar-Sulayman, B. Audu
{"title":"A comparison of oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term, at the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Zaria","authors":"S. Hauwa, S. Shittu, H. Umar-Sulayman, B. Audu","doi":"10.4103/TJOG.TJOG_27_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The comparison of same,equal and low dose of misoprostol by the oral and vaginal routes for induction of labour at term requires further elucidation. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 25 micrograms (ug) of oral misoprostol with 25ug vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. Methods: A randomised control trial that involved 169 consented women with indication for induction of labor. A total of 85 women had oral misoprostol while 84 women had vaginal misoprostol. The oral misoprostol dose (25ug) was repeated every 2 hours, while the vaginal dose (25ug) was repeated every 6 hours for a maximum duration of 24 hours or when need arose for intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS version 20. Results: The mean induction-delivery interval was significantly shorter (18.48 +/- 2.01 vs. 22.82 +/- 2.50, P = 0.00), with more vaginal deliveries (88.2% vs. 85.7%, P = 0.00) in the oral group compared to the vaginal group respectively. The cardiotocographic abnormalities in the vaginal group were significantly higher than the oral group (8.3% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.03). There were more foetal distress and meconium stained liquor in the vaginal group but not statistically significant.","PeriodicalId":23302,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TJOG.TJOG_27_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The comparison of same,equal and low dose of misoprostol by the oral and vaginal routes for induction of labour at term requires further elucidation. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 25 micrograms (ug) of oral misoprostol with 25ug vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. Methods: A randomised control trial that involved 169 consented women with indication for induction of labor. A total of 85 women had oral misoprostol while 84 women had vaginal misoprostol. The oral misoprostol dose (25ug) was repeated every 2 hours, while the vaginal dose (25ug) was repeated every 6 hours for a maximum duration of 24 hours or when need arose for intervention. Data was analysed using SPSS version 20. Results: The mean induction-delivery interval was significantly shorter (18.48 +/- 2.01 vs. 22.82 +/- 2.50, P = 0.00), with more vaginal deliveries (88.2% vs. 85.7%, P = 0.00) in the oral group compared to the vaginal group respectively. The cardiotocographic abnormalities in the vaginal group were significantly higher than the oral group (8.3% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.03). There were more foetal distress and meconium stained liquor in the vaginal group but not statistically significant.
口服米索前列醇与阴道米索前列醇用于足月引产的比较,在Zaria的Ahmadu Bello大学教学医院
背景:通过口服和阴道途径对相同、相等和低剂量的米索前列醇进行足月引产的比较需要进一步阐明。目的:比较25微克口服米索前列醇和25微克阴道米索前列用于足月引产的疗效和安全性。方法:一项随机对照试验,涉及169名同意引产的女性。共有85名妇女口服米索前列醇,84名妇女阴道服用米索前列。口服米索前列醇剂量(25μg)每2小时重复一次,而阴道剂量(25µg)每6小时重复一一次,最长持续时间为24小时或需要干预时。使用SPSS版本20对数据进行分析。结果:与阴道组相比,口服组的平均引产间隔显著缩短(18.48+/-2.01 vs.22.82+/-2.50,P=0.00),阴道分娩次数分别增加(88.2%vs.85.7%,P=0.000)。阴道组的心分娩异常明显高于口服组(8.3%对1.2%,P=0.03)。阴道组的胎儿窘迫和胎粪染色液较多,但无统计学意义。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信