HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Perry, M. Y. Articles by Leaphart, W. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Perry, M. Y. Articles by Leaphart, W. L. Related Collections Labor and operative obstetrics Obstetric complications of pregnancy

Randomized Trial of Intracervical Versus Posterior Fornix Dinoprostone for Induction of Labor

From the Memorial Health University Medical Center, Mercer School of Medicine, Savannah Campus, Savannah, Georgia.

Address reprint requests to: Michelle Y. Perry, MD, Bradley-Polk OB/GYN, 55 25th Street, NW, Cleveland, TN 37311; e-mail: mperry007{at}charter.net.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether intracervical placement of a sustained-release dinoprostone insert decreased the length of time to delivery when compared with placement in the posterior fornix.

METHODS: Sixty-three patients were randomized to intracervical (n = 33) or posterior fornix (n = 30) placement of the initial dose. Dinoprostone was placed under direct visualization with a vaginal speculum and packing forceps. The patients and staff were blinded to the site of placement. Multiple end points were examined throughout labor. Student t test, Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon test, Mann–Whitney U test, and ² analyses were performed when appropriate. A P value of less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS: Forty-six patients who required only a single dose of dinoprostone had a reduced time to delivery with intracervical (n = 24; 11.70 hours) compared with intravaginal (n = 22; 16.20 hours) placement (P = .025). There was also a reduced time to active labor (intracervical = 8.25 hours, posterior fornix = 11.50 hours; P = .083), ruptured membranes (intracervical = 10.25 hours, posterior fornix = 12.00 hours; P = .047), and request for initial pain medications (intracervical = 5.00 hours, posterior fornix = 11.25 hours; P = .025) with intracervical placement. There was no difference in number of patients managed with artificial rupture of membranes. There was no difference in maternal age, race, parity, maternal height or weight, or indication for induction. There was also no difference in cesarean delivery rate, antepartum fever, hyperstimulation, Apgar scores, birth weight, or umbilical artery pH.

CONCLUSION: In patients who respond to a single sustained-release dinoprostone insert, intracervical placement decreases time to delivery without increasing the cesarean delivery rate, infectious morbidity, or other complications of labor.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-1

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Other articles noted Evid. Based Med., September 1, 2004; 9(5): e5 - e5. [Full Text] [PDF]