220
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Efficacy of sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor at term and post term according to parity and membrane integrity: a prospective observational study

, , , , , & show all
Pages 508-513 | Received 13 Feb 2016, Accepted 13 Apr 2016, Published online: 20 Jun 2016

References

  • WHO. WHO recommendations for Induction of labour: Evidence base. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2011; 1–121
  • Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011;11:84–27
  • Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour (review). Cochrane Collaboration 2014;1:1–340
  • Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:201–9
  • Mayer RB, Oppelt P, Shebl O, et al. Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducinglabor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;200:89–93
  • Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;5:350–217
  • Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynecol Obstetr 2007;99:160–7
  • Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, et al. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002;109:645–50
  • Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study. J Obstetr Gynaecol Res 2009;35:1054–60
  • Nassar AH, Awwad J, Khalil AM, et al. A randomised comparison of patient satisfaction with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labour at term. BJOG 2007;114:1215–21
  • Feitosa FEL, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA, Jr et al. Sublingual vs. vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;94:91–5
  • Sharami SH, Milani F, Faraji R, et al. Comparison of 25 μg sublingual and 50 μg intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour:a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Arch Iran Med 2014;17:652–6
  • Elhassan EM, Nasr AM, Adam I. Sublingual compared with oral and vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;97:153–4
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 106: intrapartum fetal rate heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general mangement principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:192–202
  • Todros T, Ferrazzi E, Nicolini U, et al. Fitting growth curves to head and abdomen measurements of the fetus: a multicentric study. J Clin Ultrasound 1987;15:95–105
  • Kominiarek MA, Zhang J, VanVeldhuisen P, et al. Contemporary labor patterns: the impact of maternal body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:244.e1–.e8
  • Lassiter JR, Holliday N, Lewis DF, et al. Induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix: how does BMI affect success? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016:29:3000–2
  • Dällenbach P, Boulvain M, Viardot C, Irion O. Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol 2003;188:162–7
  • Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Misoprostol versus cervagem for the induction of to terminate pregnancy in the second and third trimester: a systematic review. Eur J Obstetr Gynecol Reproduct Biol 2006;125:3–8
  • Cheng S-Y, Ming H, Lee J-C. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:119–25
  • Wang X, Yang A, Ma Q, et al. Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Carlan SJ, Blust D, O'Brien WF. Buccal versus intravaginal misoprostol administration for cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:229–33
  • Kunzier NB, Park H, Cioffi J, et al. A comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016. [Epub ahead of print]
  • Hofmeyer GJ, Gulemzoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour (review). Cochrane Collaboraiton 2014;10:1–528
  • Caliskan E, Bodur H, Ozeren S, et al. Misoprostol 50 microg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005;59:155–61
  • Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Nadisauskiene R. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;91:2–9
  • Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, et al. Vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study. Iran J Pharm Res 2014;13:299–304

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.