• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
ALEXMED ePosters
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 7 (2025)
Volume Volume 6 (2024)
Volume Volume 5 (2023)
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 4 (2022)
Volume Volume 3 (2021)
Volume Volume 2 (2020)
Volume Volume 1 (2019)
Elsaid, S., Labib, T., Rageh, A., Abdallah, A. (2023). VAGINAL DINOPROSTONE VERSUS VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR IN POST-DATED PREGNANCY. ALEXMED ePosters, 5(3), 57-58. doi: 10.21608/alexpo.2023.237275.1696
Samir Elsaid; Tamer Ahmed Hosney Labib; Ahmed Shoukry Abdelmoneim Rageh; Amr Ahmed Abdelhak Abdallah. "VAGINAL DINOPROSTONE VERSUS VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR IN POST-DATED PREGNANCY". ALEXMED ePosters, 5, 3, 2023, 57-58. doi: 10.21608/alexpo.2023.237275.1696
Elsaid, S., Labib, T., Rageh, A., Abdallah, A. (2023). 'VAGINAL DINOPROSTONE VERSUS VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR IN POST-DATED PREGNANCY', ALEXMED ePosters, 5(3), pp. 57-58. doi: 10.21608/alexpo.2023.237275.1696
Elsaid, S., Labib, T., Rageh, A., Abdallah, A. VAGINAL DINOPROSTONE VERSUS VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR IN POST-DATED PREGNANCY. ALEXMED ePosters, 2023; 5(3): 57-58. doi: 10.21608/alexpo.2023.237275.1696

VAGINAL DINOPROSTONE VERSUS VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR IN POST-DATED PREGNANCY

Article 1, Volume 5, Issue 3, September 2023, Page 57-58  XML
Document Type: Preliminary preprint short reports of original research
DOI: 10.21608/alexpo.2023.237275.1696
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Samir Elsaid1; Tamer Ahmed Hosney Labib2; Ahmed Shoukry Abdelmoneim Rageh3; Amr Ahmed Abdelhak Abdallah email 4
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria.
3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University
4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University
Abstract
Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most frequent performed procedures in obstetrics. It is universally accepted that (IOL) is indicated when fetal and maternal outcomes are better than expectant management, which is waiting for spontaneous onset of labor. Before IOL is performed, informed consent should be made with good counselling about the risks and benefits for the method that will be used. Induction of labor is artificial stimulation of uterine contractions before onset of spontaneous labor for effective progressive effacement and dilatation of cervix and ultimately delivery of the feto-placental unit. There are many factors affecting the success of induction like pre-induction bishop score, parity, age of the mother, BMI, gestational age, fetal size and some biochemical markers such as: fibronectin, insulin like growth factor binding protein 1 and activin A. Various methods of induction are available; pharmacological and mechanical. Pharmacological methods use oxytocin, prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) which can be administered through different routes (vaginal, buccal or sublingual) and dinoprostone which is also available in different forms (tablets, pessary, inserts and Gel).
Keywords
Induction of labor (IOL); MISOPROSTOL; DINOPROSTONE
Supplementary Files
download 1696 23 (1).pdf
Statistics
Article View: 63
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.