International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Volume 85, Issue 3 , Pages 285-286 , June 2004

Intravaginal misoprostol vs. dinoprostone as cervical ripening and labor-inducing agents

  • M Elhassan

      Affiliations

    • University of Geizera, Geizera, Sudan
    • ,
  • O.A Mirghani

      Affiliations

    • University of Geizera, Geizera, Sudan
    • ,
  • I Adam

      Affiliations

    • New Halfa Hospital, New Halfa, Sudan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +249-421-22101, 21880; fax: +249-421-22070

Received 14 July 2003 ,Revised 29 October 2003 ,Accepted 13 November 2003.

References 

  1. Brindley BA, Sokol RJ. Induction and augmentation of labor: bases and methods for current practice. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1988;43:730–743
  2. Marguilies M, Perez MC, Vato L. Misoprostol for induction of labor. Lancet. 1992;339:364
  3. Fletcher H, Mitchell S, Frederick J, Simeon D, Brown D. Intravaginal misoprostol vs. dinoprostone as cervical ripening and labor inducing agents. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:244–247
  4. Buser D, Mora G, Arias F. A randomized comparison between misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervices. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:581–585

PII: S0020-7292(03)00520-4

doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.11.016

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Volume 85, Issue 3 , Pages 285-286 , June 2004

Article Tools