Comparison of the different dosages of rectal misoprostol on intestinal motility and pain score in high risk cesarean delivery

4Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To prospectively compare the efficacy of different dosages of rectal misoprostol on pain and intestinal motility in postoperative high risk cesarean delivery. Material and Methods: Consecutive 160 pregnant women with two or more previous cesarean sections who underwent cesarean delivery were randomly grouped to receive no drug (n= 40), 200 μg misoprostol (n= 40), 400 μg misoprostol (n= 40) or 600 μg misoprostol (n= 40) rectally before leaving the operating room. Primary outcomes were the time interval between surgery and first bowel movements and first flatus passage. Secondary outcome was the women's satisfaction measured with a visual analogue scale. Patient demographic characteristics, pre- and postoperative findings, pain scores on visual analog scale and adverse effects of the drug were assessed in all groups. Results: Time to first bowel movement and the first flatus passage were significantly shorter in the group given 600 μg rectal misoprostol than the others (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores on visual analogue scale and postoerative additional analgesic need among the groups (p= 0.270 and p= 0.906, respectively). The side effects of fever and shivering were found more frequent in the 600 μg misoprostol group, but the difference among the groups did not reach a statistical significance (p<0.01). Conclusion: Single dose rectal misopros-tol appears to be effective in recovery of gas troin testinal function after high risk cesareandelivery. © 2010 by Türkiye Klinikleri.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Çayan, F., Doruk, A., Sungur, M. A., & Dilek, S. (2010). Comparison of the different dosages of rectal misoprostol on intestinal motility and pain score in high risk cesarean delivery. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 30(4), 1154–1159. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2008-10206

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free