Comparison of Induction of Labour with Sublingual Versus Vaginal Misoprostol 25 UG in a Primigravida with Post-Date Pregnancy: Sublingual vs Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction in Postdated Primigravida

Huma Gul; Sania Tanveer Khattak; Kaleemullah Jan; Saima Khan; Zahid Iqbal; . Sobia; . Nazia

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v7i7.3824

Authors

Huma Gul Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Saidu Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan
Sania Tanveer Khattak Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Saidu Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan
Kaleemullah Jan Department of Pediatric Surgery, Swat Medical Complex, Swat, Pakistan
Saima Khan Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Saidu Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan
Zahid Iqbal Midway Regional Hospital, Mullingar, Ireland
. Sobia Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Saidu Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan
. Nazia Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Saidu Teaching Hospital, Swat, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v7i7.3824

Keywords:

Labor, Misoprostol, Pregnancy, Primitive gravida

Abstract

In obstetrics, the induction of labour has been widely used in clinical practice for a decade. Misoprostol is effective for the induction of labour. It can be administered either sublingually or via the vaginal route. Objective: To compare the induction of labour with sublingual versus vaginal Misoprostol 25 ug in primigravida with postdate pregnancy. Methods: Our Study Prospective Comparative Study with consecutive sampling, conducted at the department of Gynecology, and Obstetrics at Saidu Group of Teaching Hospitals Swat, from March 2025 to September 2025 (6 months duration). Results: 160 participants were analyzed, with 80 in Group A (sublingual) and 80 in Group B per-vaginal route). Vaginal delivery within 24 hours occurred in 84.4% of the sublingual group and 80.8% of the vaginal group (p=0.612), while the mean induction-to-delivery time was significantly shorter in the sublingual group (9.1 ± 2.9 hrs vs. 10.4 ± 3.2 hrs; p=0.04). Maternal side effects and neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores and birth weights, were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: Both sublingual and vaginal misoprostol (25 µg) were effective for labour induction in post-date primigravida. The sublingual route demonstrated a significantly shorter induction-to-delivery interval with comparable safety outcomes, offering a practical alternative for routine clinical use.

References

Drife JO. The history of labour induction: How did we get here? Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021 Nov; 77: 3-14. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.07.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.07.004

Swift EM, Gunnarsdottir J, Zoega H, Bjarnadottir RI, Steingrimsdottir T, Einarsdottir K. Trends in Labor Induction Indications: A 20‐Year Population‐Based Study. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2022 Dec; 101(12): 1422-1430. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14447

Pergialiotis V, Panagiotopoulos M, Constantinou T, Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou L, Koumenis A et al. Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 2023 Sep; 308(3): 727-775. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9.

Grobman WA and Caughey AB. Elective Induction of Labor at 39 Weeks Compared with Expectant Management: A Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest. 2020 Sep; 40(3): 140-141. doi: 10.1097/01.aoa.0000693752.75149.6e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aoa.0000693752.75149.6e

Delaney M, Roggensack A, Leduc DC, Ballermann C, Biringer A, Dontigny L et al. Guidelines for the Management of Pregnancy at 41+ 0 To 42+ 0 Weeks. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2008 Sep; 30(9): 800-810. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32945-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32945-0

Ugwuoroko HC, Eleje GU, Okafor CG, Okechukwu ZC, Eke AC, Okoro CC et al. Obstetric Outcome of Induction of Labour in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria: A Five-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science. 2023 Jul; 8(7): 235. doi: 10.23958/ijirms/vol08-i07/1706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23958/ijirms/vol08-i07/1706

Weeks AD, Lightly K, Mol BW, Frohlich J, Pontefract S, Williams MJ. Evaluating misoprostol and mechanical methods for induction of labour: Scientific Impact. An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2022 Jul; 129(8): 61-5. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17136

Taliento C, Manservigi M, Tormen M, Cappadona R, Piccolotti I, Salvioli S et al. Safety of Misoprostol Vs Dinoprostone for Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2023 Oct; 289: 108-128. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382

Pergialiotis V, Panagiotopoulos M, Constantinou T, Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou L, Koumenis A, Stavros S et al. Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Sublingual Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2023 Sep; 308(3): 727-775. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9.

Dadashaliha M, Fallah S, Mirzadeh M. Labor Induction with Randomized Comparison of Cervical, Oral and Intravaginal Misoprostol. BioMed Central Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2021 Oct; 21(1): 721. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-04196-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04196-4

Siwatch S, Kalra J, Jain V. Sublingual VS Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research. 2012 Sep; 46(3): 138-143. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1031

Gupta J, Baev O, Gomez JD, Garabedian C, Hellmeyer L, Mahony R et al. Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labor. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2022 Feb; 269: 138-142. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.023

Gülümser C, Yassa M, WHO Intrapartum Care Algorithms Working Group, Ciabati L, De Oliveira LL, Souza R et al. Clinical Management of Uterine Contraction Abnormalities; An Evidence‐Based Intrapartum Care Algorithm. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2024 Aug; 131: 49-57. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16727

da Silva FC, Moreira de Sá RA, de Oliveira CA. Perinatal Asphyxia (Acute Fetal Distress). In Perinatology: Evidence-Based Best Practices in Perinatal Medicine. 2021 Nov: 939-961. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-83434-0_51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83434-0_51

Amini M, Wide-Swensson D, Herbst A. Sublingual Misoprostol Vs. Oral Misoprostol Solution for Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Study. Frontiers in Surgery. 2022 Sep; 9: 968372. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.968372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.968372

Shafqat T, Zeb L, Fatima SS, Bhittani R. Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Women Undergoing Induction of Labor with Low Dose Vaginal Misoprostol. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. 2023 Sep; 39(5): 1307. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.5.7072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.39.5.7072

Pergialiotis V, Panagiotopoulos M, Constantinou T, Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou L, Koumenis A, Stavros S et al. Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Sublingual Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2023 Sep; 308(3): 727-775. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9

Baig FS, Bano B, Danish R. The Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual Vs Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour in Low-Risk Pregnancies at Term. Pakistan Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2025 Mar; 36(1): 28-32. doi: 10.51642/ppmj.v36i01.712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51642/ppmj.v36i01.712

Galidevara C, Chaturvedula L, Habeebullah S. Comparison of Oral, Vaginal and Sublingual Misoprostol for Induction of Labour in Premature Rupture of Membranes After 34 Weeks of Gestation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Apr; 7(4): 1341. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20180958. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20180958

Rahimi M, Haghighi L, Baradaran HR, Azami M, Larijani SS, Kazemzadeh P et al. Comparison of the Effect of Oral and Vaginal Misoprostol on Labor Induction: Updating A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Interventional Studies. European Journal of Medical Research. 2023 Jan; 28(1): 51. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01007-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01007-8