Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, ISSN 1927-1271 print, 1927-128X online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Gynecol Obstet and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.jcgo.org

Original Article

Volume 7, Number 2, June 2018, pages 52-56


Comparison of Dinoprostone Vaginal Tablet and Vaginal Insert in Primigravid Women for Induction of Labor

Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of Studied Primigravid Women
 
CharacteristicsMean ± SD (range)
Age (years)23 ± 4.4 (19 - 35)
Body mass index (kg/m2)27.8 ± 2.1 (24 - 31)
Weight (kg)52 ± 7.9 (44 - 63)
Gestational week36 ± 3 (31 - 41)

 

Table 2. Indications for Use of Dinoprostone Vaginal Tablet and Vaginal Insert
 
IndicationsOverall (n = 135)Vaginal tablet (n = 82)Vaginal insert (n = 53)
The number in parentheses represents the percentage of patients in particular group.
Post-term pregnancy51 (37.8%)29 (35.4%)22 (41.5%)
Premature rupture of membrane (PROM)29 (21.5%)26 (31.7%)3 (5.7%)
Gestational diabetes mellitus24 (17.8%)10 (12.2%)14 (26.4%)
Intrauterine growth restriction10 (7.4%)5 (6.1%)5 (9.4%)
Preeclampsia6 (4.4%)4 (4.9%)2 (3.8%)
Pregnancy induced hypertension4 (3.0%)2 (2.4%)2 (3.8%)
Cholestasis5 (3.7%)3 (3.7%)2 (3.8%)
Oligohydramnios3 (2.2%)2 (2.4%)1 (1.9%)
Sickle cell + antepartum hemorrhage3 (2.2%)1 (1.2%)2 (3.8%)

 

Table 3. Comparison of Outcomes of Labor Induction Between Dinoprostone Vaginal Tablet and Vaginal Insert
 
OutcomesVaginal tablet (n = 82)Vaginal insert (n = 53)P-value
Cesarean30 (36.6%)18 (34.0%)0.756
Spontaneous vaginal delivery35 (42.7%)24 (45.3%)0.766
Instrumental delivery17 (20.7%)11 (20.8%)0.997
Length of labor (h)7 (2 - 13)6 (3 - 12)0.616
Number of tablets1 (1 - 3)-NA