Article Text

Download PDFPDF

PL.46 A Retrospective Review Comparing the Efficiency and Outcomes of Propess and Prostin Gel as a Method of Inducing Labour
  1. SRM Murray,
  2. KCD Dundas,
  3. JBL Byrne-Leitch,
  4. WYP Poon,
  5. AD Dick
  1. Simpson Centre for reproductive Health, Edinburgh, UK


Introduction Induction of labour is a common procedure affecting 1 in 5 pregnancies in the UK. The induction of labour process in Lothian was changed in August 2010 from prostin gel to propess pessary. This study aims to compare the efficiency and outcomes of propess and prostin for induction of labour.

Method A retrospective case note review was carried out with 278 randomly selected patients who received induction of labour with propess since August 2010 compared with 278 randomly selected patients from the same timeframe the year previously who received induction of labour with prostin. The groups were split into prim and parous and the outcomes were statistically compared between the groups using mann-whitney and t-tests.

Results Both propess and prostin had a similar failed induction rate. Propess had a significantly longer average length of stay in hospital, a higher chance of requiring second round prostin and a significantly longer time from induction to delivery compared with the prostin group. However the number of patients requiring oxytocin in labour was significantly less in the propess group. There was no difference in the mode of delivery between groups.

Conclusion Further research is needed to determine where the time delay is in the length of stay in hospital and the study needs to be re-audited once the 24 hour rest period is re-introduced in the propess group. Should we go back to prostin?

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.