COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SUBLINGUAL MISOPROSTOLAND INTRACERVICAL DINOPROSTONE GEL FOR LABOR INDUCTION: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Background: Induction of labor is a common obstetric procedure. Misoprostol (PGE1) and Dinoprostone (PGE2) are widely used agents with varying efficacy and safety profiles. Objective: To compare the efficacy, maternal and neonatal outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of sublingual Misoprostol versus intracervical Dinoprostone gel in term pregnancies. Methods:This prospective study included 260 pregnant women randomly assigned to either Group A (Dinoprostone gel) or Group B (sublingual Misoprostol). Outcomes analyzed included induction-to-delivery interval, mode of delivery, maternal complications, neonatal Apgar scores, NICU admissions, and cost per induction. Results: Misoprostol significantly shortened the induction-to-delivery interval (p<0.05). However, it showed higher NICU admissions (58.3% vs. 41.6%, p=0.042) and lower Apgar scores. Cesarean rate was higher with Misoprostol (39.2% vs. 35.4%). Misoprostol was markedly more cost-effective. Conclusion: While sublingual Misoprostol is quicker and economical, it carries higher maternal and neonatal risks. Dinoprostone provides a safer alternative for controlled induction. Individualized selection and close monitoring are advised.