Oral misoprostol versus intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: A comparison study

Caterina Neri, Alessandra Familiari, Francesco Preziosi, Chiara Vassallo, Angela Botta, Antonio Lanzone, Brigida Carducci, Alessandro Caruso

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: induction of labor (iol) is one of the most common procedures performed in obstetrics, accounting for about the 20% of deliveries in the developed countries and it still represents a challenge to obstetricians. The aim of this study is the comparison between two techniques for iol: oral misoprostol and Propess®. MeTHoDS: a retrospective study has been carried out in a single tertiary referral center. clinical maternal, fetal and neonatal information was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 863 women were included. the vaginal delivery (VD) rate was signifcantly higher in the misoprostol group. The cesarean section rate was comparable between groups. adverse events and neonatal outcomes were comparable between groups. conclUSionS: Misoprostol shows a higher vD rate with fewer patients needing a second type of induction and a shorter time to the onset of active labor and to vD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)378-384
Number of pages7
JournalMinerva Ginecologica
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Aug 1 2018


  • Cesarean section
  • Dinoprostone
  • Induced labor
  • Misoprostol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Oral misoprostol versus intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: A comparison study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this