Moistening of misoprostol tablets with acetic acid prior to vaginal administration for mid-trimester termination of anomalous pregnancy: A randomised comparison of three regimens

References

• World Health Organization. Medical methods for termination of pregnancy. WHO Technical Report Series 871. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Lalitkumar S, Bygdeman M, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Mid-trimester induced abortion: A review. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:37–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz B, Kelekci S, Ertas IE, et al Misoprostol moistened with acetic acid or saline for second trimester pregnancy termination: A randomized prospective double-blind trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3067–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong KS, Ngai CS, Yeo EL, et al A comparison of two regimens of intravaginal misoprostol for termination of second trimester pregnancy: A randomized comparative trial. Hum Reprod 2000;15:709–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickinson JE, Evans SF. The optimization of intravaginal misoprostol dosing schedules in second-trimester pregnancy termination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:470–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz B, Kelekci S, Ertas IE, et al Randomized comparison of second trimester pregnancy termination utilizing saline moistened or dry misoprostol. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2007;276:511–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bhattacharjee N, Saha SP, Ghoshroy SC, et al A randomised comparative study on sublingual versus vaginal administration of misoprostol for termination of pregnancy between 13 to 20 weeks. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:165–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pongsatha S, Tongsong T. Randomized comparison of dry tablet insertion versus gel form of vaginal misoprostol for second trimester pregnancy termination. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008;34:199–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong KS, Ngai CS, Wong AY, et al Vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal gemeprost in termination of second trimester pregnancy. A randomized trial. Contraception 1998;58:207–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang OS, Lau WN, Chan CC, et al A prospective randomised comparison of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol in second trimester termination of pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111:1001–5.
   Google Scholar
• von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Wojdyla D, et al WHO Research Group on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for second trimester abortion: Randomized controlled equivalence trial. Hum Reprod 2009;24:106–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain JK, Kuo J, Mishell DR Jr. A comparison of two dosing regimens of intravaginal misoprostol for second-trimester pregnancy termination. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:571–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickinson JE, Godfrey M, Evans SF. Efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol in second-trimester pregnancy termination: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Med 1998;7:115–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carbonell JL, Torres MA, Reyes R, et al Second-trimester pregnancy termination with 600-microg vs. 400-microg vaginal misoprostol and systematic curettage postexpulsion: A randomized trial. Contraception 2008;77:50–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonell JL, Rodriguez J, Delgado E, et al Vaginal misoprostol 800 microg every 12 h for second-trimester abortion. Contraception 2004;70:55–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebbington MW, Kent N, Lim K, et al A randomized controlled trial comparing two protocols for the use of misoprostol in midtrimester pregnancy termination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:853–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, et al Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:88–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information. Gastrointestinal drugs. American Society of Health System Pharmacists Publication 1998;56:2445–50.
   Google Scholar
• Ficicioglu C, Tasdemir M, Tasdemir S. Effect of vaginal misoprostol application for cervical softening in pregnancy interruption before ten weeks of gestation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:54–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelekci S, Yilmaz B, Savan K. Misoprostol wetting with acetic acid for pre-abortion cervical priming. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:188–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh K, Fong YF, Prasad RN, et al Does an acidic medium enhance the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol for pre-abortion cervical priming? Hum Reprod 1999;14:1635–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho PC, Blumenthal PD, Gemzell-Danielsson K, et al Misoprostol for the termination of pregnancy with a live fetus at 13 to 26 weeks. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;99 (Suppl. 2)S178–81.
   Google Scholar
• ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Medical management of abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97 (Suppl.): 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hamoda H, Ashok PW, Flett GM, Templeton A. A randomized trial of mifepristone in combination with misoprostol administered sublingually or vaginally for medical abortion at 13–20 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2348–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang OS, Chan CC, Kan AS, Ho PC. A prospective randomized comparison of sublingual and oral misoprostol when combined with mifepristone for medical abortion at 12–20 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3062–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar