2013Obstetrics and GynecologyRequires access

Buccal Misoprostol Compared With Synthetic Osmotic Cervical Dilator Before Surgical Abortion

Deborah Bartz, Rie Maurer, Rebecca H. Allen, Jennifer Fortin, Bernice Kuang, Alisa B. Goldberg

Open publisher page 30 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of buccal misoprostol or a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for cervical preparation before same-day late first-trimester and early second-trimester surgical abortion. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared 400 micrograms of buccal misoprostol with one synthetic osmotic cervical dilator administered 3-4 hours before surgical abortion among women at 12-15 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was mean cervical circumferential dilation at the time of surgery. Randomization was stratified by parity and sample size calculated to detect a 3-French difference between groups with 90% power with a two-sided α of .05. Secondary outcomes included ease of further mechanical dilation, procedure time, complications, ripening and procedural pain, and participants' satisfaction. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five women were randomized with a mean gestational age of 13 3/7 weeks. Treatment with the synthetic osmotic dilator and buccal misoprostol resulted in similar preoperative dilation (mean French 33.9 compared with 32.1, P=.065). Procedure time, procedural pain, number of complications, and participants' satisfaction and preferences did not differ between treatment groups. Misoprostol participants experienced more pain during ripening (P=.008). All but six participants, three in each arm, required mechanical dilation at the time of the procedure. This manual dilation was subjectively easier in participants who received the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (P=.015). All participants were able to have their procedure in 1 day without further cervical preparation. CONCLUSION: Either buccal misoprostol or a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator provides adequate dilation for same-day late first-trimester and early second-trimester abortion. Despite more pain with misoprostol, patient satisfaction with misoprostol and the synthetic dilator is similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00835731. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of buccal misoprostol or a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for cervical preparation before same-day late first-trimester and early second-trimester surgical abortion. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared 400 micrograms of buccal misoprostol with one synthetic osmotic cervical dilator administered 3-4 hours before surgical abortion among women at 12-15 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was mean cervical circumferential dilation at the time of surgery. Randomization was stratified by parity and sample size calculated to detect a 3-French difference between groups with 90% power with a two-sided α of .05. Secondary outcomes included ease of further mechanical dilation, procedure time, complications, ripening and procedural pain, and participants' satisfaction. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five women were randomized with a mean gestational age of 13 3/7 weeks. Treatment with the synthetic osmotic dilator and buccal misoprostol resulted in similar preoperative dilation (mean French 33.9 compared with 32.1, P=.065). Procedure time, procedural pain, number of complications, and participants' satisfaction and preferences did not differ between treatment groups. Misoprostol participants experienced more pain during ripening (P=.008). All but six participants, three in each arm, required mechanical dilation at the time of the procedure. This manual dilation was subjectively easier in participants who received the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (P=.015). All participants were able to have their procedure in 1 day without further cervical preparation. CONCLUSION: Either buccal misoprostol or a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator provides adequate dilation for same-day late first-trimester and early second-trimester abortion. Despite more pain with misoprostol, patient satisfaction with misoprostol and the synthetic dilator is similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00835731. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 30 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of buccal misoprostol or a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for cervical preparation before same-day late first-trimester and early second-trimester surgical abortion. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared 400 micrograms of buccal misoprostol with one synthetic osmotic cervical dilator administered 3-4 hours before surgical abortion among women at 12-15 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was mean cervical circumferential dilation at the time of surgery. Randomization was stratified by parity and sample size calculated to detect a 3-French difference between groups with 90% power with a two-sided α of .05. Secondary outcomes included ease of further mechanical dilation, procedure time, complications, ripening and procedural pain, and participants' satisfaction. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five women were randomized with a mean gestational age of 13 3/7 weeks. Treatment with the synthetic osmotic dilator and buccal misoprostol resulted in similar preoperative dilation (mean French 33.9 compared with 32.1, P=.065). Procedure time, procedural pain, number of complications, and participants' satisfaction and preferences did not differ between treatment groups. Misoprostol participants experienced more pain during ripening (P=.008). All but six participants, three in each arm, required mechanical dilation at the time of the procedure. This manual dilation was subjectively easier in participants who received the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (P=.015). All participants were able to have their procedure in 1 day without further cervical preparation. CONCLUSION: Either buccal misoprostol or a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator provides adequate dilation for same-day late first-trimester and early second-trimester abortion. Despite more pain with misoprostol, patient satisfaction with misoprostol and the synthetic dilator is similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00835731. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Key concepts: Dilator, Medicine, Cervical dilation, Misoprostol, Buccal administration, Obstetrics, Abortion, Gestational age

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Buccal Misoprostol Compared With Synthetic Osmotic Cervical Dilator Before Surgical Abortion — Research Paper | ScholarLens