Sublingual versus sublingual plus vaginal misoprostol for induction of birth

Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of sublingual and sublingual+vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Methods: A retrospective study was performed with patients who underwent labor induction with misoprostol between October-December 2003.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Women were exluded if they had Bishop Score >7, intra uterine exitus fetus, preterm rupture of membranes and gestational weeks

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:2003 Verileri

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of sublingual and sublingual+vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Methods: A retrospective study was performed with patients who underwent labor induction with misoprostol between October-December 2003. Patients who administered misoprostol sublinguals or sublingual+vaginally for induction of labor were included study. Women were exluded if they had Bishop Score >7, intra uterine exitus fetus, preterm rupture of membranes and gestational weeks

Özet

Amaç. Dialtı ve dilaltı+vajinal misoprostol kullanımının etkinliğini ve güvenirliğini karşılaştırmak Yöntem. Ekim-Aralık 2003 tarihleri arasında doğum eyleminin indüksiyonu amacıyla dialtı (50$mu$g) ve dilaltı (50ng)+vajinal (50pg) misoprostol uygulanan gebeler retrospektif olarak tarandı. Çalışmaya intrauterin eksitus, erken memeran rüptüril, 7, olan hastalar alınmamadı. Ana sonuç değişkeni olarak indüksiyon-doğum süresi değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar. Dilaltı misoprostol uygulanan 40 hasta, dilaltı+vajinal misoprostol 41 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Ortalama indüksiyon-doğum süresi dilaltı yolda (10,3±4,2 saat) dilaltı+vajinal yolda (10.6±4,9) bulundu (p=8). Dilaltı yolda daha yüksek dozda misoprostol kullanıldı (2[l-4] vs. l[l-4]; p

🔖

Cite This Article

YALVAÇ, S., AL, A., HABERAL, A., KANDEMİR, Ö., GÜVEN, G. E. S., DÖLEN, İ. (2022). Sublingual versus sublingual plus vaginal misoprostol for induction of birth. Kadın Doğum Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 4, 575–578. https://ajindex.com/articles/569041

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003:CD000941
Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Ho PC. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:332-6
Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. ObstetGynecol 1997;90:88-92
Curtis P, Evens S, Resnick J. Uterine hyperstimulation. The need for standard terminology. J Reprod Med 1987; 32:91-5
Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I. Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:145-51
Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, Rice P, Templeton A. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. Bjog2002; 109:645-50
Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:72-6. 8-Wolf SB, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sublingual misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:365-71
Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004.CD004221. 10-How HY, Leaseburge L, Khoury JC, Siddiqi TA, Spinnato JA, Sibai BM. A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185:911 -5.