[''Prepidil versus Propess'': pharmacological induction of labour with dinoprostone].

Aim. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the two different pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone: "Prepidil vs Propess", in patients with medical and/or obstetrical indications to pharmaceutical induction of labour. Methods. A retrospective analysis was carried out on 144 patients (82 with Propess vs 62 with Prepidil). Indications: post-term pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), gestational diabetes, gestational-chronic hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction (IU-GR),others (fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios). Results. The groups were homogenous regarding: age, parity, weeks of amenorrhea, Bishop score and indication to induction. Both pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone (Prepidil vs Propess) are effective and safe; there are some differences not statistically significant (P>0.01) regarding the percentage of spontaneous deliveries: 61.5% vs 63%, interval from induction to delivery 24.53 vs 20.45 h, number of inductions 1.35 vs 1.15 and neonatal outcome (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min). A case of serious hyperstimulation with hysterectomy post-delivery after induction with Prepidi was observed. Conclusion. A greater use of Propess, especially in patients with PROM, is suggested; Propess has determined a higher percentage of spontaneous deliveries, a shorter interval from induction to delivery and less risks for the mother. It is in fact possible to remove the device easily and safely in case of complication.