International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Volume 86, Issue 1 , Pages 52-53 , July 2004

Oral misoprostol vs. vaginal misoprostol for termination of pregnancy with intrauterine fetal demise in the second-trimester

  • F.A Fadalla

      Affiliations

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

      Affiliations

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

      Affiliations

    • New Halfa Hospital, New Halfa, Sudan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. P.O. Box 61, New Halfa, Sudan. Tel.: +249-421-22101/21880; fax: +249-421-22070

Received 25 November 2003 ,Revised 8 December 2003 ,Accepted 8 December 2003.

References 

  1. Elhassan EH, Mirghani OA, Adam I. Intravaginal misoprostol vs. dinoprostone as cervical ripening and labor-inducing agents. Int J Gynecol Obstet, in press
  2. Dickinson JE, Evans SF. A comparison of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol administration in second trimester pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:1294–1299
  3. Wong KS, Ngai CS, Wong AY, Tang LC, Ho PC. Vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal Gemeprost in termination of second-trimester pregnancy: a randomized trial. Contraception. 1998;58:207–210
  4. Zieman M, Frong DR, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:88–92

PII: S0020-7292(04)00003-7

doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2003.12.006

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Volume 86, Issue 1 , Pages 52-53 , July 2004

Article Tools