米索前列醇用于无痛人工流产的临床观察

目的:观察米索前列醇用于无痛人工流产术的临床效果。方法:将米索前列醇在无痛人工流产术前、后舌下含化,并与无痛人工流产术、一般人工流产术对比。观察镇痛效果、宫颈松弛度、手术时间、术中出血量及人工流产综合反应发生率、不良反应等指标。结果:米索前列醇应用于无痛人工流产手术前后,镇痛率100%,宫颈松弛软化率高,缩短了手术时间,减少了术中出血量,有效地避免了人工流产综合反应的发生,不良反应轻微。结论:米索前列醇用于无痛人工流产,能充分改善宫颈松弛度,缩短手术时间,减少手术中的出血量。此法简单易行、效果好、副反应少。     

米索前列醇用于负压吸宫术前宫颈准备疗效评价

目的:对不同剂量米索前列醇用于吸宫术前促宫颈软化效果及药物不良反应进行评价.方法:采用多中心随机双盲对照临床试验,比较在术前3小时服用米索前列醇600μg与米索前列醇400μg对宫颈的软化作用及观察两组的药物不良反应情况.结果:米索前列醇600μg组宫颈扩张平均值6.70±1.23 mm高于米索前列醇400μg组6.44±1.20 mm(P=0.03),两组的初孕妇女宫颈扩张平均值差异明显(6.85±1.58 mm vs 6.51±1.16 mm,P=0.01);同时,未行静脉麻醉的孕妇中米索前列醇600μg初孕组宫颈扩张平均值高于400μg初孕组(P=0.02),米索前列醇600μg的初孕组宫颈扩张平均值也高于有1次人工流产史组(P=0.002);两组服药后主要的药物不良反应为阴道流血、恶心及腹痛等,均无大出血的情况发生,未作特殊处理.结论:负压吸宫术前3小时口服米索前列醇能安全、有效促进宫颈软化,600 μg较400 μg效果好,尤其对于初孕的妇女.     

米索前列醇在人工流产术中扩张宫颈的临床观察

<正>为了探索米索前列醇(以下简称米索)在人工流产术中扩张宫颈的临床效果,我们对198例要求行人工流产的孕6～13周健康妇女给予口服米索行药物扩宫,观察结果如下.     

宫腔操作前米索前列醇不同给药途径对宫颈成熟影响的Meta分析

目的:评价宫腔操作前米索前列醇通过不同给药途径促宫颈成熟的作用效果及不良反应。方法:计算机检索Medline、Embase、The Cochrane Library、中国知网(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、万方数据库,时限为自建库至2014年10月。由2名研究者按照纳入标准与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价文献质量后,采用Rev Man5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入12篇文献,共2 529例患者。Meta分析结果显示,口服、舌下含服和阴道给药3种给药方式两两比较均提示其宫颈宽度的差异无统计学意义(均P0.05);阴道给药后宫腔操作用时少于口服给药(P0.05),但扩张宫颈耗时差异无统计学意义(P0.05);舌下含服后扩张宫颈耗时和宫腔操作用时均少于阴道给药(均P0.05)。在药物相关不良反应方面,口服及舌下含服米索前列醇后腹泻与恶心发生率明显高于阴道给药(均P0.05),舌下给药后呕吐发生率明显高于阴道给药(P0.000 1);此外,各种给药途径子宫痉挛收缩、阴道出血、发热、寒颤等不良反应的发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:口服、舌下含服和阴道给药3种给药途径在促宫颈成熟方面无差异;考虑避免药物相关不良反应,建议在宫腔操作前采取阴道给予米索前列醇。     

丙泊酚配伍米索前列醇用于人工流产镇痛效果观察

目的:探讨无痛人工流产术前应用米索前列醇对宫颈的扩张效果。方法:将330例自愿要求行无痛人工流产术终止妊娠的早孕健康妇女随机分为观察组(A组)和对照组(B组)。A组于手术前3h口服米索前列醇0.2～0.4mg,然后在丙泊酚静脉麻醉下行人工流产手术;B组直接在丙泊酚静脉麻醉下行人工流产手术,观察两组宫颈扩张、手术时间、术中出血量、术后阴道流血时间、用药量及用药后副作用。结果:两组手术麻醉效果无显著差异(P<0.05)。但A组宫颈松弛度明显好于B组,手术时间A组也较B组明显缩短,且手术易于操作,术中出血量、术后阴道流血时间均明显少于B组,丙泊酚用药量减少(P<0.01)。两组均无人工流产综合症及无一例呼吸抑制发生。结论:丙泊酚静脉麻醉下实施人工流产,术前3h口服米索前列醇0.2～0.4mg,有较好的宫颈扩张作用,可增强子宫收缩,手术易于操作,术中出血少,术后阴道流血时间短,丙泊酚用量减少,值得临床推广应用。     

间苯三酚与米索前列醇用于妇科术前患者宫颈扩张的效果

目的 观察在妇科术前患者宫颈扩张处理中实施间苯三酚与米索前列醇的效果。方法 选取120例妇科术前宫颈扩张患者,根据随机数字表法分组,各60例。对照组实施米索前列醇扩张宫颈,观察组实施间苯三酚扩张宫颈。比较两组临床疗效。结果 观察组不良反应发生率低于对照组（P<0.05）。观察组术中出血量少于对照组,宫颈扩张时间短于对照组,宫颈扩张程度高于对照组（P<0.05）。观察组宫颈扩张率高于对照组（P<0.05）。观察组治疗总有效率96.67%高于对照组的86.67%(P<0.05)。结论 在妇科术前宫颈扩张患者治疗中,间苯三酚的治疗效果明显优于米索前列醇,可优化患者的手术指标,宫颈扩张程度显著,且具有安全性。     

芬太尼联合米索前列醇用于人工流产镇痛效果观察

目的:探讨芬太尼联合米索前列醇用于无痛人流手术的效果。方法:将328例无阴道分娩史要求人工流产的早孕妇女随机分成3组:A组(芬太尼组)110例,静脉推注芬太尼针0.002mg/kg,注毕手术;B组(米索前列醇组)106例,术前3h阴道放置米索前列醇400μg;C组(芬太尼联合米索前列醇组)112例,术前3h阴道放置米索前列醇400μg。术时静推芬太尼,剂量同A组。观察各组镇痛效果、宫颈扩张程度、出血量、人流综合征及药物副反应。结果:C组镇痛效果及宫颈扩张程度均优于A组、B组(P<0.01),术中出血量及药物副反应无明显差异(P>0.05),无1例发生人流综合征。结论:芬太尼联合米索前列醇用于人工流产较单纯用药效果好。用药简单、安全,值得临床推广。     

米索前列醇在终止早孕的促宫颈成熟作用

早孕人工流产对于将来的生育能力存在重要影响,很多医院早孕吸宫术前需扩张宫颈,机械性强制扩张宫颈可引起宫颈裂伤及子宫穿孔的危险。为评价口服米索前列醇,阴道放置Gemeprost或宫颈管内放置吸湿塞条(Dilapan)三种不同方法作为宫颈     

米非司酮配伍米索前列醇用于人工流产术前的效果分析

目的评价米非司酮配伍米索前列醇用于早孕8～12周人工流产术前对宫颈的松弛效果。方法将要求无痛人工流产的健康早孕妇女分为两组，试验组术前应用米非司酮150mg及米索前列醇400μLg，然后在异丙酚静脉麻醉下行人工流产手术；对照组直接行异丙酚静脉麻醉下人工流产手术，对两组进行多项指标对比分析。结果试验组宫颈松弛度明显好于对照组，手术时间也较对照组明显缩短，且手术易于操作，术中出血少。两组均无人工流产综合征发生。结论米非司酮配伍米索前列醇用于无痛人工流产术前，有较好的宫颈松弛作用，手术易于操作，术中出血少，值得临床应用。     

氧化亚氮并用米索前列醇镇痛在人工流产术中的应用

目的　探讨氧化亚氮与米索前列醇并用镇痛在人工流产术中的临床应用价值。方法　将 4 4 0例未产早孕妇女 ,随机分为笑气组、米索组、联合组、对照组 ,观察各组术中镇痛效果、宫颈扩张程度、手术时间、术中及术后出血量、人工流产不良反应发生率。结果　联合组及笑气组镇痛效果显著 ,联合组效果最佳 ,四组间两两比较差异显著 (P <0 0 5 )。联合组无痛人工流产率及 6号宫颈扩张器通过率最高 ,手术时间最短 ,与其他各组比差别均有显著性 (P <0 0 5 ) ,人工流产不良反应发生率最低。结论　氧化亚氮用于人工流产有较好的镇痛作用 ,加用米索前列醇镇痛效果更为理想     

Misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, from the best available evidence, the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol administered vaginally or orally for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour. METHODS: Clinical trials of misoprostol used for cervical ripening or labour induction in the third trimester were identified from the register of randomised trials maintained by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. All identified trials were considered for inclusion in the review according to a prespecified protocol. Primary outcomes were chosen to address clinical effectiveness (delivery within 24 hours) and safety (uterine hyperstimulation, caesarean section, serious maternal and neonatal morbidity) and were determined a priori. All meta-analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. In the absence of heterogeneity the summary statistics have been expressed as typical relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Vaginal misoprostol: one small study showed that the use of misoprostol results in more effective cervical ripening and reduced need for oxytocin when compared with placebo. When compared with oxytocin, vaginal misoprostol was more effective for labour induction. The relative risk of failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was 0.48 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.66). However, the relative risks for uterine hyperstimulation with and without fetal heart rate abnormalities were 2.54 (95% CI 1.12 to 5.77) and 2.96 (95% CI 2.11 to 4.14), respectively. In three out of four trials which studied women with intact membranes and unfavourable cervices, failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was reduced with misoprostol when compared with other prostaglandins (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81). Vaginal misoprostol was associated with increased uterine hyperstimulation both without fetal heart rate changes (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.14) and with associated fetal heart rate changes (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04). There was also an increase in meconium stained amniotic fluid following vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.79). Oral misoprostol: one small trial suggests that, when compared with placebo, oral misoprostol reduces the need for oxytocin and shortens the time between induction and delivery. Compared with other prostaglandins one small trial showed a reduced need for oxytocin with oral misoprostol. Two trials compared oral with vaginal misoprostol using different doses. No significant differences were evident. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, misoprostol appears to be more effective than conventional methods of cervical ripening and labour induction. Although no differences in perinatal outcome were shown, the studies were not sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of uncommon serious adverse effects. In particular the increase in uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes following misoprostol is a matter for concern. It is possible that, if sufficient numbers are studied, an unacceptably high number of serious adverse events including uterine rupture and asphyxial fetal deaths may occur. The data at present are not robust enough to address the issue of safety. Thus, though misoprostol shows promise as a highly effective, inexpensive and convenient agent for labour induction, it cannot be recommended for routine use at this stage. Lower dose misoprostol regimens should be investigated further.     

Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the safety and efficacy of 25 microg versus 50 microg of intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. DATA SOURCES: We supplemented a search of entries in electronic databases with references cited in original studies and review articles to identify RCTs of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction, which compared repeated doses of 25 microg and 50 microg. STUDY SELECTION: We evaluated, abstracted data, and assessed the quality of RCTs to compare the safety and efficacy of 25 microg versus 50 microg of intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Five RCTs met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome (random- and fixed-effects models). In addition, we aggregated the results of two separate studies, permitting an indirect comparison of the two doses being analyzed. In the meta-analysis, tachysystole and hyperstimulation syndrome appear to occur less frequently among women who received 25 microg of misoprostol than with 50 microg. However, neonatal outcomes appear to be comparable with the two doses. Regarding efficacy, use of the 50-microg dose was associated with a shorter interval to vaginal delivery, greater proportion of deliveries within 24 hours, and less frequent need for oxytocin augmentation. The indirect comparison of two studies yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Published data indicate that intravaginal misoprostol at doses of 50 microg for cervical ripening and labor induction is more efficacious but it is unclear whether it is as safe as the 25-microg dose.     

Medical methods for cervical ripening before the removal of intrauterine devices in postmenopausal women: a systematic review

In China, most women with intrauterine devices (IUDs) ask to have them removed following the menopause. As the cervix is stenotic after the menopause and most IUDs do not have a thread attached, various medical methods are used for cervical ripening prior to IUD removal. A systematic review of the relevant literature was conducted to compare different medical methods for cervical priming with no treatment, or with other methods, prior to IUD removal in postmenopausal women. Multiple electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the WHO Reproductive Health Library (2011) and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched systematically. Reference lists of articles published in English or Chinese between 1980 and 2011 were searched. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on IUD removal following the menopause using medical agents compared with no treatment, or with other treatments, were included. Outcomes were the ease of IUD removal, need for forced cervical dilatation, cervical width, procedure time, severe pain and any side-effects. Data were processed using RevMan 5 software. Thirty original RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Most medical agents such as oestrogens, mifepristone, misoprostol and methyl carboprost were highly effective for facilitating IUD removal, and reduced the need for further dilatation during the procedure. In particular, treatment with mifepristone or misoprostol prior to IUD removal was found to increase the width of the cervical canal and reduce the procedure time. Mifepristone was more effective than vaginal misoprostol for cervical dilatation, but it showed similar effectiveness to misoprostol and nilestriol in terms of the ease of IUD removal. Sublingual misoprostol was superior to oral misoprostol for facilitating IUD removal. A dose of misoprostol as low as 200 μg was effective for cervical priming. For vaginal and oral misoprostol, the optimum times of application were 2–3 h and 1 day prior to the procedure, respectively. All the prophylactic medical methods were able to alleviate pain during IUD removal, and vaginal misoprostol was more effective than nilestriol. Uterine injury was more common with no treatment and with nilestriol. Gastrointestinal side-effects such as nausea and diarrhoea were common with oral misoprostol and vaginal misoprostol, respectively. Therefore, mifepristone or sublingual misoprostol should be the medical treatments of choice. Oestrogen regimens might be alternatives when mifepristone or misoprostol are contraindicated, and there is a need for further study on combined regimens for cervical priming.     

Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and side effects of low-dose oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: Women with Bishop score 6 or less admitted for labor induction at term were eligible for this randomized controlled trial. Exclusion criteria were multiple pregnancy, breech, fetal distress, or previous uterine scar. The allocation to the oral misoprostol group (20 microg given every 2 hours increased to 40 microg depending on uterine contractions) or to the vaginal dinoprostone group (2 mg twice, 6 hours apart) was contained in a sealed, opaque, and consecutively numbered envelope. RESULTS: Two hundred women (100 in each group) were included. The proportion of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was 56% in the misoprostol group and 62% in the dinoprostone group (relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.72-1.14). The risk of cesarean section was 18% and 19%, respectively. The median interval to delivery, calculated from survival analysis, was longer in the misoprostol group (1305 minutes) compared with the dinoprostone group (1080 minutes). The log-rank test was not significant (P =.35). Uterine hyperstimulation occurred in 9% of women in the misoprostol group compared with 14% in the dinoprostone group (P =.27). The only significant difference in neonatal outcomes was a more frequent presence of thick meconium in the misoprostol group (P =.03). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in terms of effectiveness and safety between low-dose oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone used for induction of labor. This regimen avoids the excessive uterine contractility noted in previous studies, where higher doses of misoprostol were administered at longer intervals.     

Oral misoprostol vs. vaginal gemeprost prior to surgical termination of pregnancy in nulliparae

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and side-effects of intravaginal gemeprost with those of oral misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to first-trimester pregnancy termination in nulliparous women. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of surgical terminations of pregnancy performed before 90 days of gestation. Intravaginal gemeprost 1 mg or oral misoprostol 800 micro g was administered 2 h before the procedure. RESULTS: In total, 746 women were enrolled into the study, 84 received intravaginal gemeprost and 662 oral misoprostol. Median baseline cervical dilatation was significantly greater in women who received misoprostol before the operation than in those who received gemeprost (7 mm vs. 3 mm; p < 0.0001). The incidence of fever, vomiting and diarrhea was not different between the two groups. The incidence of abdominal pain with request for pain medication, emergency admission to operating room due to vaginal bleeding, hospital stay longer than 24 h and surgical repair of cervical injury due to Hegar dilatation was significantly higher among the gemeprost group than the misoprostol group. CONCLUSIONS: In cervical priming prior to first-trimester pregnancy termination in nulliparous women, oral misoprostol is more effective and is associated with fewer side-effects and complications than intravaginal gemeprost.     

Safety and efficacy of misoprostol orally and vaginally: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy accompanying oral and vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening. METHODS: One thousand four women with medical or obstetric indications for labor induction and unripe cervices were randomly assigned to receive oral or vaginal misoprostol. Initial doses of 200 microg oral and 50 microg vaginal misoprostol were increased to 300 microg oral and 100 microg vaginal after two doses, to a maximum of six doses. Misoprostol was given every 6 hours in both groups. We anticipated that 11% of women treated vaginally would require intervention during the ripening process. Intervention was defined as interruption of the ripening process before labor or Bishop score of 7 or a lack of response to six misoprostol doses. RESULTS: Five hundred three subjects were assigned to oral and 501 to vaginal administration. Oral misoprostol was associated with significantly higher frequencies of intervention (67 [13.3%] versus 42 [8.4%], P =.01), tachysystole (114 [23.6%] versus 85 [17.6%], P =.02), and hyperstimulation (90 [18.6%] versus 66 [13.7%], P =.04). There were no significant differences in cesarean rates (147 [29.2%] versus 120 [24.0%], P =.06), mean number of misoprostol doses used (1.5 versus 1.6, P =.18), or hours from drug administration to delivery (24.5 versus 25.4, P =.77) between the oral and vaginal groups, respectively. The numbers of deliveries between the groups within 24 hours was different (271 [56%] versus 290 [60%], P =.02), oral and vaginal, respectively. No adverse neonatal outcomes were noted. CONCLUSION: Oral misoprostol has similar efficacy as vaginal misoprostol but is associated with a higher frequency of excessive uterine contractility and intervention.     

Oral misoprostol vs. intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare orally administered misoprostol with intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: Patients presenting with medical or obstetric indications for labor induction whose Bishop's score was < or = 6 were randomly allocated to receive either 50 micrograms of oral misoprostol or 4 mg of intravaginal prostaglandin E2. If adequate cervical ripening (Bishop score of 9 or cervical dilatation of 3) or active labor did not ensue, repeat doses of each medication were administered every four hours. A maximum of six doses of either oral misoprostol or intravaginal prostaglandin E2 was permitted. Intravenous oxytocin was subsequently administered according to a standardized infusion protocol. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled, with 29 randomized to the oral misoprostol arm and 31 to the prostaglandin E2 group. The data on 58 patients were eligible for analysis. Delivery occurred within 48 hours in 96.4% (27/28) of those administered oral misoprostol as compared to 76.7% (23/30) of those who received intravaginal prostaglandin E2 (P = .03). The mean time intervals from the start of induction to delivery were similar between the two groups (1,496 +/- 120 vs. 1,723 +/- 230 minutes, P = .40). No statistically significant differences existed between the two groups with respect to intrapartum complications, tachysystole, uterine hyperstimulation or adverse neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Oral administration of misoprostol is an effective alternative to intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for preinduction cervical ripening.     

A randomized comparison of transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol tablets with transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening. METHODS: Pregnant women who presented for induction of labor with unfavorable cervices (Bishop score less than 6) were assigned randomly to intravaginal misoprostol (50 microg tablet every 4 hours for a maximum of six doses) or 30-mL Foley catheter placed transcervically with maintenance of traction. RESULTS: Among 111 women, 53 were allocated to misoprostol and 58 to Foley bulb. Contractile abnormalities were more frequent in the misoprostol group (20.4%) than the Foley group (0%) (P <.001). No statistically significant differences were noted between groups in change in Bishop score, preinduction cervical ripening times, and total induction times. There were no statistically significant differences in mode of delivery or adverse neonatal outcomes. Uterine rupture occurred in one woman with two previous cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group. CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter are equivalent for cervical ripening. Uterine contractile abnormalities and meconium passage are more common with misoprostol.     

Use of misoprostol on an outpatient basis for postdate pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Within the obstetric community, several studies suggest that cervical ripening and labor induction after 40 weeks' gestation leads to improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. The most effective drug regimen to safely promote labor has not been determined. METHOD: Forty-nine subjects followed in an outpatient obstetrical clinic with pregnancies of at least 40 weeks' gestation, and an unfavorable Bishop score were assigned randomly to receive oral misoprostol 50 or 25 microg every 3 days for a maximum of three doses. RESULTS: Twenty-three subjects received misoprostol 25 microg and 26 received 50 microg. The mean interval (+/-standard deviation) from start of cervical ripening to delivery was 2.4 days +/-0.3 vs. 3.9 days +/-0.7 for the 50 and 25 microg groups (P<0.05). No adverse events were noted. However, due to small sample size, less frequent adverse events may be missed. Type II errors cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: In the prevention of postdate pregnancy, outpatients use of oral misoprostol 50 microg appears to result in earlier delivery, as compared to 25 microg.     

Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of vaginal with oral misoprostol for induction of labor. METHODS: A total of 107 women with clinical indication for induction were randomly assigned to receive oral or vaginal misoprostol. Doses of 100 microg of oral or 25 microg of vaginal misoprostol were given every 3-4 hours. If cervical ripening or active labor did not occur, repeated doses of oral (100-200 microg) or vaginal (25-50 microg) were given until labor was established. RESULTS: Fifty-nine women received oral misoprostol, and 48 received vaginal administration. Delivery time was similar for the vaginal and oral arms (1074 +/- 488 minutes versus 930 +/- 454 minutes, P =.11). Parity was significantly different (P =.04) for the vaginal and oral groups. The cesarean delivery rate was similar for the vaginal and oral arms (17% versus 15%, P =.72). The number of medication administrations was consistent between groups. Birth weight was not different for patients in the control and treatment groups (vaginal 3281 +/- 507 g versus oral 3359 +/- 541 g, P =.44). Chorioamnionitis and tachysystole were comparable for the oral and vaginal groups. There was no statistical difference in neonatal outcomes. Similar proportions of infants were admitted to the well baby nursery and intermediate care nursery. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that, in a closely supervised hospital setting with adequate monitoring, oral misoprostol has the potential to induce labor as safely and effectively as its vaginal analogue.