• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较米索前列醇与地诺前列酮在无合并症孕妇中的引产效果。

Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant disease.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, University Hospital, Cracow, Poland.

Department of Obstetrics & Perinatology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland (employed until 2019).

出版信息

Ginekol Pol. 2020;91(12):726-732. doi: 10.5603/GP.2020.0119.

DOI:10.5603/GP.2020.0119
PMID:33447991
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Induction of labour is a part of an active prenatal care nowadays and the ideal method of that procedure still remains to be identified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of misoprostol vaginal insert as compared to dinoprostone gel for delivery induction in pregnant women without any comorbidities.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It was a retrospective cohort study of 240 pregnant women. The primary study outcome was successful delivery. Other analysed parameters included time to delivery of a baby, time to the beginning of the first stage of labour, time to vaginal delivery, and duration of all delivery stages. We compared both methods regarding maternal complications during and after delivery. We also reviewed neonatal outcomes such as birth weight, birth length and 1-minute Apgar scores.

RESULTS

The patients' basic characteristics were similar regarding their age, gravidity, parity, height, weight and Bishop score. Time to any delivery and to the onset of a labour in the misoprostol group versus in the dinoprostone group was 14.5 vs 35.6 h (p < 0.001) and 9.9 h vs 25.3 h (p < 0.001) respectively. The chance of the beginning of labour and the baby's delivery over time has been observed to be approximately two times higher for misoprostol as compared to dinoprostone.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that using misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison to dinoprostone seems to shorten the time to beginning of the first stage of labour as well as the time to the delivery itself. Some lower Apgar scores observed in the misoprostol group requires further investigation.

摘要

目的

引产是当今主动产前护理的一部分,理想的引产方法仍有待确定。本研究旨在评估米索前列醇阴道栓剂与地诺前列酮凝胶在无任何合并症的孕妇中用于引产的效果。

材料和方法

这是一项回顾性队列研究,共纳入 240 名孕妇。主要研究结果是分娩成功。其他分析参数包括分娩时间、第一产程开始时间、阴道分娩时间和所有分娩阶段的持续时间。我们比较了这两种方法在分娩期间和分娩后产妇并发症的情况。我们还回顾了新生儿结局,如出生体重、出生长度和 1 分钟 Apgar 评分。

结果

患者的基本特征在年龄、孕次、产次、身高、体重和 Bishop 评分方面相似。米索前列醇组与地诺前列酮组的任何分娩时间和第一产程开始时间分别为 14.5 小时与 35.6 小时(p<0.001)和 9.9 小时与 25.3 小时(p<0.001)。随着时间的推移,米索前列醇组开始分娩和婴儿分娩的机会大约是地诺前列酮组的两倍。

结论

我们的研究表明,与地诺前列酮相比,使用米索前列醇阴道栓剂似乎可以缩短第一产程开始的时间以及分娩本身的时间。米索前列醇组观察到的一些较低的 1 分钟 Apgar 评分需要进一步研究。

相似文献

1
Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant disease.比较米索前列醇与地诺前列酮在无合并症孕妇中的引产效果。
Ginekol Pol. 2020;91(12):726-732. doi: 10.5603/GP.2020.0119.
2
Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study.米索前列醇阴道栓剂与米索前列醇阴道片用于引产的队列研究
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 May 10;18(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1788-z.
3
Labor induction with misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert.米索前列醇阴道栓剂与地诺前列酮阴道栓剂用于引产的比较。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Oct;98(10):1268-1273. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13667. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
4
Misoprostol vaginal insert versus dinoprostone vaginal insert: A comparison of labour and delivery outcomes.米索前列醇阴道栓剂与地诺前列酮阴道栓剂:分娩结局比较
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Apr;235:93-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.025. Epub 2018 Jul 25.
5
Misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel.米索前列醇用于足月引产:一种比地诺前列酮阴道凝胶更有效的药物。
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Aug;106(8):793-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08399.x.
6
Randomized comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction.米索前列醇与地诺前列酮用于引产术前宫颈成熟和引产的随机对照比较。
J Formos Med Assoc. 1997 May;96(5):366-9.
7
Low-dose vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: A randomized trial.低剂量阴道米索前列醇与阴道地诺前列酮栓用于 41 周后引产:一项随机试验。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Jul;98(7):913-919. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13556. Epub 2019 Feb 24.
8
Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction.米索前列醇阴道给药与地诺前列酮阴道栓剂用于引产的随机对照试验
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003 Apr;13(4):254-9. doi: 10.1080/jmf.13.4.254.259.
9
Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy.足月妊娠引产中滴定口服米索前列醇溶液与阴道用地诺前列酮的对比研究。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Sep;294(3):495-503. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-4000-y. Epub 2016 Jan 8.
10
Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial.足月引产时阴道用米索前列醇与地诺前列酮阴道栓剂的疗效及安全性比较:一项随机试验
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Jul;280(1):19-24. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0843-9. Epub 2008 Nov 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Induction of labor with dinoprostone in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: comparative analysis with normotensive pregnant women.妊娠高血压疾病患者使用地诺前列酮引产:与血压正常孕妇的对比分析。
Colomb Med (Cali). 2025 Mar 30;56(1):e2016719. doi: 10.25100/cm.v56i1.6719. eCollection 2025 Jan-Mar.