A comparative clinical trial of vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical normal saline infiltration as a cervical ripening agent at time of hysteroscopy.

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol and intracervical normal saline infiltration as cervical ripening agents. A randomized comparative clinical trial had been conducted in AL Yarmouk Teaching Hospital involving two methods for cervical ripening before the hysteroscopic procedure. One Hundred women were enrolled in the study, fifty of them were those who used preoperative vaginal misoprostol and the other fifty patients were those who had been submitted to intracervical normal saline infiltration during surgery. Basal cervical dilatation, time to achieve 8 mm cervical dilatation, difficulties, and complications encountered during the procedure were evaluated and compared for both groups. The participants had been admitted for hysteroscopy for the following indications: Abnormal uterine bleeding, missed loop, infertility, polypectomy, endometrial resection, and myomectomy. Regarding operative findings, the basal cervical dilatation was not significantly different between them, the time required to achieve the required dilatation was significantly shorter for the normal saline infiltration group, 66.95 sec. ± 10.85 than for the misoprostol group which was 87.9 sec. ± 13.11. There was more difficulty in dilatation with more complications in the misoprostol group than in the normal saline infiltration group. Normal saline infiltration is a simple, readily available at the time of surgery and with fewer complications and shorter time of dilatation in comparison to vaginal misoprostol for a comparable efficacy.