Maternal outcomes of using dinoprostone gel and dinoprostone insert for induction of laborat term pregnancy: a comparative study

Introduction: Induction of labor is defined as the process of artificially stimulating the uterus to start labor. Aims and Objectives: The study was done to compare the maternal outcomes of using dinoprostone gel and dinoprostone insert for induction of labor. Material and Methods: A hospital-based prospective comparative study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur from April 2018 to November 2018. 100 pregnant women at term attending the antenatal clinic were enrolled and were divided into two groups, Group-A (intracervical gel) and B (vaginal insert) comprising 50 women in each group. The primary outcome in terms of mode of delivery, the number of women delivering vaginally, and time interval from induction to delivery were measured. Results: In Group-A, a total of 35 (70.00%) women had a vaginal delivery and 15 (30.00%) had a cesarean section. In Group-B, a total of 38 (76.00%) women had a vaginal delivery and 12 (24.00%) women had cesarean section According to parity, greater number of primipara women delivered vaginally in insert group. Similarly, a greater number of multipara delivered with insert. In the present study, 35.30% primiparas and 18.75% multiparas had a caesarean section in the gel group, whereas 33.33% primiparas and 5.89% multiparas had a cesarean delivery in the insert group. In primipara women, the time interval from induction to vaginal delivery was shorter (18.18 ± 2.11 hours) in the insert group as compared to gel (19.2 ± 2.06 hours). Similar results were seen in multiparas (gel, 14.3 ± 3.12 hours vs. insert, 13.26 ± 1.14 hours). Conclusion: In terms of successful vaginal delivery, dinoprostone vaginal insert is similar to intracervical gel in efficacy.