Objective: To compare the efficacy and side effects of vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone for cervical priming before operative hysteroscopy and to assess the cervicouterine complications related to cervical dilatation and hysteroscopic surgery.Design: A prospective randomized study.Setting: Tertiary university hospital.Patient(s): Three hundred ten nulliparous women with definite intrauterine lesions.Intervention(s): Hysteroscopic surgery of intrauterine lesions.Main Outcome Measure(s)” Cervical response, outcome, complications of hysteroscopic surgery, and side effects of both drugs.Result(s): Among the 310 patients recruited, 152 were randomized to the vaginal misoprostol group and 158 to the dinoprostone group. Mean cervical dilatation, cervical dilatation rate, and mean time for cervical dilatation to Hegar 9 were significantly different between the misoprostol group (7.4 ± 0.8 mm, 70.4%, and 39.5 ± 18.8 seconds, respectively) and the dinoprostone group (7.0 ± 0.9 mm, 80.4%, and 43.6 ± 17.1 seconds, respectively). Cervical tearing during hysteroscopic surgery occurred in 3 patients (2.0%) in the misoprostol group and in 12 patients (7.6%) in the dinoprostone group. There were more side effects in the misoprostol group. The significant difference of side effects between the two groups were abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, and feeling feverish, which occurred in 36.2%, 29.6%, and 7.2% in the misoprostol group compared to 21.5%, 16.5%, and 1.3%, respectively, in the dinoprostone group.Conclusion(s) : Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than dinoprostone for cervical priming in nulliparous women before hysteroscopic surgery. Although more side effects occurred in the misoprostol-treated patients, they were mild. We suggest using vagina misoprostol for cervical priming instead of dinoprostone.

Fertility and Sterility ปี 2549, October ปีที่: 86 ฉบับที่ 4 หน้า 990-994

Misoprostol, Cervical priming, Dinoprostone, Hysteroscopic surgery, Operative hysteroscopy