Printer Friendly

Cervical priming by misoprostol before diagnostic dilatation and curettage: a randomized clinical trial.

Introduction

Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common problem that gynecologists encounter and most of the patients have benign disease, but need more evaluation especially after the age of 35 (1). Difficulty in dilating the internal cervical os is a common problem in performing curettage. The complications related to this problem include cervical trauma, creation of false tract and uterine perforation (2). Ripening the cervix before curettage reduces commonness of these complications. A few studies are available on the use of misoprostol for ripening the cervix prior to gynecological procedures on women. Nowadays misoprostol has become a desirable agent due to its beneficial effects on cervical ripening on nonpregnant women (3-5).

Originally, misoprostol as a synthetic prostaglandin E1 analogue was administered for prevention and treatment of gastric ulcer diseases. One of the effects of this agent has been dilatation of cervix which is used in gynecology because of its effectiveness and ease of administration (6, 7).

After oral administration, misoprostol is rapidly absorbed. The half life of this agent is about 20 to 40 minutes (7). Adverse effects of misoprostol after oral administration are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever which are dose dependent. Gastrointestinal side effects are decreased if the tablets are administered vaginally.

Vaginal application of misoprostol, results in a slower increase in plasma but overall exposure to the drug is increased (8).

This study was conducted in order to evaluate effectiveness of misoprostol on ripening the cervix before dilatation and curettage.

Methods

This study was performed over a period of six months between October 2011 and April 2012 at Taleghani teaching Hospital in Tehran Iran.

This is a clinical trial (IRCT2013022712632N1) with random allocation followed by a double blind design for two parallel groups.

56 nonpregnant women admitted for diagnostic dilatation and curettage due to abnormal uterine bleeding were the participants of this study. After counseling with the patients in clinic, the patency of the cervix was as closed as to prevent passage of hystrometer were included. Patients who had history of cervical surgery, cervical incompetency, and current pregnancy were not included. The patients who had any contraindications for use of misoprostol, such as history of asthma, hypertension, and glaucoma, were not included.

Age, menopausal status, parity, and cervical patency were recorded.

Initially, 102 patients were enrolled for this study. 46 patients were excluded from the study either due to not meeting the inclusion criteria (n=38) or due to refusal (n=8).

Fifty six women scheduled to have diagnostic dilatation and curettage due to abnormal uterine bleeding were included in this study after going through inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The patient were randomly allocated to two parallel groups (A and B) having 28 patients in each of the two arms using computer generated randomization protocol.

All the patients were admitted on the day before operation and undergone detailed history taking and clinical examination. Routine baseline investigations were also performed.

The patients in the study group (Group A) received 200 [micro]g misoprostol (Searle & Company (now Pfizer) under the trade name Cytotec, USA) in posterior fornix of vagina, 2-4 hr prior to the operative 1 procedures and the patients in the control group (Group B) received vitamin B6 (Kimia Daroo, Iran) in posterior fornix of vagina 2-4 hr prior to the operative procedures.

Selection of vitamin B6 tablet as a placebo is due to the fact that it doesn't have any significant systemic effects by vaginal administrations. Also there was no report of its effects on cervical tissue or uterine (4, 6). We had used both the misoprostol and vitamin B6 tablets in round compressed shape (white in color), and the smaller size of vitamin B6 tablet was the only difference. For having double blinded study, both of the drugs were in identical sealed envelope. The duty Resident doctor, just before application of the drugs, opened the sealed envelope and applied them in posterior fornix of the patients. The investigators did not have any information about the agents that were administered.

To determine the cervical width, a No. 5 Hegar dilator was first applied to the cervical canal. Upon passage of Hegar dilator, curettage was successfully completed. If not passed, progressively smaller sizes of Hegar dilator were applied. Cervical response was assessed by the largest size Hegars dilator that could be inserted without resistance at the beginning of the surgical procedures. Other outcome measures were needed for further cervical dilatation (larger than No. 5 Hegar dilator).

Development of any pre-operative side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramp, vaginal bleeding, pyrexia of significance, loose motions, etc. were also noted.

Per-operative complications, if any were also taken into consideration.

The data was analyzed using SPSS 14 statistical software. To compare the outcomes between the study group and the placebo group for statistical analysis, Chi-square test, t-test and MannWhitney U test were used. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Ethical consideration: The study was approved by "The Ethics Committee" at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, No. 400/1731; 31-2-91. Before enrolments for the study, all women provided a written informed consent after full counseling about advantages and disadvantages of misoprostol.

Results

The average of age of participates was 50.7[+ or -]9 years in misoprostol group and 50.4[+ or -]9 years in the control group. Eleven patients in misoprostol group and 7 in placebo group were nulliparous. There were 9 menopausal patients in misoprostol group and 7 in the control group. There was no significant difference in the clinical characteristics (age, weight, parity, and menopause status) between misoprostol and control groups either (Table 1). With an increase in age, misoprostol was less effective (p=0.008) but body weight of the patients did not have any correlation with misoprostol dose (p=0.5).

In fifteen patients (53.6%) of misoprostol group and 8 patients (28.6%) in the placebo group, the Hager dilatators number 5 could pass the cervix. This result was statistically different between two groups (p=0.05). The use of vaginal misoprostol facilitated dilatation and curettage. Cervical os was wider in misoprostol group (4.8[+ or -]1 mm) than in control group (4.0[+ or -]1 mm), p=0.01. Operative procedures undertaken in both groups were also comparable. Procedural time (minutes) from the beginning of procedures through the external cervical was significantly shorter in misoprostol group (13.5[+ or -]1.4 min) than in placebo group (19.4[+ or -] 0.9 min) (p<0.001). Requirement of further cervical dilatation and the time required for that was also significantly less in the study group (Table 2).

In premenopausal women, the cervical width (based on number of Hegar dilator) before dilatation and curettage was 5.0[+ or -]0.9 mm in misoprostol group versus 3.9[+ or -]1 mm in placebo group (p= 0.003). In postmenopausal women, the cervical width before dilatation and curettage was 4.3[+ or -]1.3 mm in misoprostol group versus 4.1[+ or -]1 mm in control group (p=0.86). The difference between the two groups in postmenopausal patients was not significant. Requirement of further cervical dilatation for that in premenopausal patients was also significantly less in the study group. The number of post menopause cases was too low to evaluate distinctively (Table 3).

In nulliparous patients, the cervical width before dilatation and curettage was 4.8[+ or -]1.2 mm in misoprostol group versus 3.6[+ or -]1.5 mm in control group (p=0.066). Therefore, there was no significant difference in cervical width between groups. Moreover, there was no difference in requirement for further cervical dilatation (Table 3).

Misoprostol had minor and transient side effects; nausea was reported in three patients, abdominal pain in two patients (25%), diarrhea in two patients (25%), and no cases of fever or vomiting were reported. These side effects were also not significantly higher than the placebo group. There was a case of vaginal bleeding related to misoprostol use.

Discussion

Our findings showed that misoprostol is effective in cervical priming for dilatation and curettage in premenopausal women. Procedures such as dilatation and curettage are frequently performed for different gynecological problems in both pre and postmenopausal women either for diagnostic or for therapeutic purposes. Cervical dilatation is difficult part of the procedure. Cervical ripening prior to operative procedures makes the operation easier and decreases the risk of cervical injury and uterine perforation which are often associated with mechanical cervical dilatation. Laminaria and prostaglandin agents are usually used for this purpose (9).

Discomfort and complications due to cervical dilatation despite local anesthesia and precise techniques are serious problems in those women. Cervical narrowing or stenosis, the frequently encountered condition during these procedures is a major cause of these undesirable effects. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analogue was used in obstetrics because of its uterotonic and cervical ripening effects in different studies (7, 10). Ngai et al. had reported that oral misoprostol was effective for cervical ripening in nulliparous woman (8) but it was not proved in the present report.

Cervical incompetency usually accompanies uterine anomalies except arcuate uterus (11); therefore, misoprostol is likely to be applicable to dilate the cervix in arcuate uterus cases as well.

Mathlouthi et al. reported that there is no significant difference between two groups (placebo and misoprostol) in cervical width prior to curettage. Their result is different from our findings (12). It might be due to route of misoprostol administration; in our study administration was vaginal, while in their study was sublingual. Sublingual administration has lower effect on cervix and uterine (7).

However, some studies reported that preoperative use of vaginal misoprostol did not reduce the cervical resistance particularly when used in postmenopausal women (13, 14). It might be due to hypoestrogenic state in postmenopausal women. Oppegaard et al. reported that after 2 weeks of using vaginal estrogen in postmenopausal women, 1 mg misoprostol 12 hr before curettage reduces the cervical resistance (15). Bisharah et al. also reported that misoprostol did not produce cervical priming effect when used in hypoestrogenic state cases through leuprolide acetate injection (16). In the present study, by increasing age, the efficacy of misoprostol declined probably due to estrogen deficiency.

Preoperative use of vaginal misoprostol reduced the need of higher cervical dilatation in many patients. Dilatation of the cervix was also easier in the cases. Ripening of the cervix by vaginal misoprostol reduces the pain during cervical dilatation. Saving the operation time and using lower dose of anesthesia drugs are other advantages. There are other studies which reported the same results in premenopausal patients. Cervicouterine injury during operation was very rare (only a single case of cervical injury out of 28 women) in the misoprostol group. Although vaginal use of misoprostol produced mild abdominal discomfort and slight vaginal bleeding in some women, there were no serious side effects seen in patients.

The only limitation of vaginal use of misoprostol tablets is the requirement for prior hospitalization of patients. Sublingual route of misoprostol may be the solution in this case.

The limitations of our study were performing the procedure by several resident doctors and variation in anesthesia for the patients. History of vaginal delivery is also likely to have an effect on cervical patency as well. Future studies are needed to be carried out for limiting the effects of these variables.

Conclusion

It was found that vaginal misoprostol applied in nonpregnant premenopausal women before dilatation and curettage facilitates the cervical dilatation and minimizes cervical or uterine injuries. The effect is not significant in nulliparous or postmenopausal women.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

(1.) Bonnar J, Sheppard BL. Treatment of menorrhagia during menstruation: randomised controlled trial of ethamsylate, mefenamic acid, and tranexamic acid. BMJ. 1996;313(7057):579-82.

(2.) Fernandez H, Alby JD, Tournoux C, ChauveaudLambling A, DeTayrac R, Frydman R, et al. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening before operative hysteroscopy in pre-menopausal women: a doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial with three dose regimens. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(7):1618-21.

(3.) Areerak W, Manotaya S. Vaginal misoprostol prior to curettage for cervical dilatation in premenopausal women: A randomized controlled trial. Thai J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15(4):245-8.

(4.) Sharifzade F, Kashanian M, Assadollahi Dabbagh Z. Effect of vaginal misoprostol on cervical priming in diagnostic Dilatation and Curettage. IJOGI. 2010;13 (3):25-30.

(5.) Valadan M, Rezaee Z, Mohammad pour J, Moghadam Tabrizi N. Vaginal misoprostal for cervical priming before hysteroscopy. Tehran Univ Med J. 2008;66(8):599-603.

(6.) Briggs GG, Wan SR. Drug therapy during labor and delivery, part 2. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63 (12):1131-9.

(7.) Allen R, O'Brien BM. Uses of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2 (3):159-68.

(8.) Ho PC, Ngai SW, Liu KL, Wong GC, Lee SW. Vaginal misoprostol compared with oral misoprostol in termination of second-trimester pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(5):735-8.

(9.) Darwish AM, Ahmad AM, Mohammad AM. Cervical priming prior to operative hysteroscopy: a randomized comparison of laminaria versus misoprostol. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2391-4.

(10.) Singh N, Ghosh B, Naha M, Mittal S. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming prior to diagnostic hysteroscopy--efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279(1):37-40.

(11.) Yassaee F, Mostafaee L. The role of cervical cerclage in pregnancy outcome in women with uterine anomaly. J Reprod Infertil. 2011;12(4):277-9.

(12.) Mathlouthi N, Saodi O, Ben Temime R, Makhlouf T, Attia L, Chachia A. [Sublingual Misoprostol for cervical ripening before diagnostic hysteroscopy: a randomized and prospective study about 108 cases]. Tunis Med. 2011;89(11):825-9. French.

(13.) Polyzos NP, Zavos A, Valachis A, Dragamestianos C, Blockeel C, Stoop D, et al. Misoprostol prior to hysteroscopy in premenopausal and postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(4):393-404.

(14.) Fung TM, Lam MH, Wong SF, Ho LC. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming before hysteroscopy in postmenopausal women. BJOG. 2002;109(5):561-5.

(15.) Oppegaard KS, Nesheim BI, Istre O, Qvigstad E. Comparison of self-administered vaginal misoprostol versus placebo for cervical ripening prior to operative hysteroscopy using a sequential trial design. BJOG. 2008;115(5):663, e1-9.

(16.) Bisharah M, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T. A randomized trial of sublingual misoprostol for cervical priming before hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003;10(3):390-1.

Shima Mohammadian [1] Anahita Tavana [2], Shahrzad Tavana [2], Aida Mohammadian [3], Masoumeh Fallahian [4]*

1- Department of Obstetrics and Gyn[e]cology, Taleghani Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

[2]- Department of Natural Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA

[3]- Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran

[4]- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Infertility and Reproductive Health Research Center, Taleghani Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

* Corresponding Author: Masoumeh Fallahian, Infertility and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Yemen St., Chamran High way, Tehran, Iran

E-mail: m_fallahian@yahoo.com

Received: Mar. 19, 2014

Accepted: Jul. 8, 2014
Table 1. Cervical status at the beginning of surgical procedures
in the study group in comparison to the placebo group

Characteristics   Misoprostol (n=28)     Placebo(n=28)      p-value

Age * (year)      50.7 [+ or -] 9.3    50.4 [+ or -] 9.1   0.908 **
Weight * (kg)     69.8 [+ or -] 9.5    69.9 [+ or -] 9.2   0.977 **
Nulliparity           11(39.3%)             7(25%)         0.252 ***
Multiparity           17(60.7%)             21(75%)        0.39 ***
Postmenopausal         9(32.1%)             7(25%)         0.554 ***
Premenopausal         19(67.9%)             21(75%)        0.76 ***

* Mean [+ or -] SD, ** t-test, *** Chi-square test

Table 2. Cervical status at the beginning of surgical procedures
in the misoprostol group in comparison to the placebo group

Cervical Status        Misoprostol       Placebo (n=28)      p-value
before dilatation        (n=28)

Cervical            4.8 [+ or -] 1.1    4.0 [+ or -] 1.1     0.01 **
  width * (mm)
Duration of         13.5 [+ or -] 1.4   19.4 [+ or -] 0.9   < 0.001 **
  operation *
  (min)
No. 5 Hegar             15(53.6%)           8(28.6%)         0.05 ***
  passed
No. 5 Hegar did         13(46.4%)           20(71.4%)       0.057 ***
  not pass

* Mean [+ or -] SD, ** Mann-Whitney U test, *** Chi-square test

Table 3. Operative procedures undertaken in both groups based on
menopausal status

Menopausal status                   Postmenopausal

                        Misoprostol          Placebo         p-value

Cervical width pre-   4.3 [+ or -] 1.3   4.1 [+ or -] 1.1   0.863 **
procedure * (mm)

No. 5 Hegar passed        1(11.1%)           3(42.9%)       0.146 ***

No. 5 Hegar did           8(88.9%)           4(57.1%)       0.001 ***
not pass

Menopausal status                   Premenopausal

                        Misoprostol          Placebo         p-value

Cervical width pre-   5.0 [+ or -] 0.9   3.9 [+ or -] 1.1   0.003 **
procedure * (mm)

No. 5 Hegar passed       14(73.7%)           5(23.8%)       0.002 ***

No. 5 Hegar did           5(23.6%)          16(76.2%)       0.004 ***
not pass

* Mean [+ or -] SD, ** Mann-Whitney U test, *** Chi-square test

Table 4. Operative procedures undertaken in both groups based on
nulliparity

Parity                                 Nulliparous

Groups                  Misoprostol          Placebo         p-value

Cervical              4.8 [+ or -] 1.2   3.6 [+ or -] 1.5   0.066 **
  width before
  dilatation * (mm)
No. 5 Hegar dilator       6(54.5%)           2(28.6%)       0.367 ***
  passed
No. 5 Hegar dilator       5(45.4%)           5(71.4%)       0.557 ***
  did not Pass

* Mean [+ or -] SD, ** Mann-Whitney U test, *** Chi-square test
COPYRIGHT 2015 Avicenna Research Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original Article
Author:Mohammadian, Shima; Tavana, Anahita; Tavana, Shahrzad; Mohammadian, Aida; Fallahian, Masoumeh
Publication:Journal of Reproduction and Infertility
Article Type:Report
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:2879
Previous Article:Progesterone/Estradiol ratio as a predictor in the ART cycles with premature progesterone elevation on the day of hCG trigger.
Next Article:The reproductive behavior of families with Thalassemic children in Hormozgan.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters