The Journal of reproductive medicine · 2010
Evaluation of patients' satisfaction of cervical ripening using dinoprostone by either intravaginal gel or pessary: an open-label, randomized, prospective study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ferraiolo Antonella, Dellacasa Ilaria, Bentivoglio Giorgio, Ferrero Simone, Ragni Nicola
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient satisfaction of cervical ripening using dinoprostone (PGE2) by either intravaginal gel or pessary.
STUDY DESIGN: A group of 173 nulliparous women requiring cervical ripening were recruited in the study and randomized to receive either intravaginal gel (Prepidil, Upjohn, Milan, Italy [group A]) or intravaginal pessary (Propess, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Malmö, Sweden [group B]). Before administration of PGE2 and after delivery, the patients answered a questionnaire investigating the anxiety and discomfort caused by cervical ripening.
RESULTS: Of the group, 22 women did not adequately complete the questionnaire; therefore 151 women were included in the study. Before cervical ripening, anxiety and discomfort did not significantly differ between the two study groups; more patients in group A than in group B declared they would have preferred the other form of application. The intensity of pain experienced during the application of PGE2 was higher in group B than in group A. For the future opportunity to choose the application necessary for cervical ripening, more patients in group B than in group A would change the form of application.
CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with the two forms of treatment appears to be equally good. The application of the intravaginal pessary causes more discomfort than the vaginal gel.
STUDY DESIGN: A group of 173 nulliparous women requiring cervical ripening were recruited in the study and randomized to receive either intravaginal gel (Prepidil, Upjohn, Milan, Italy [group A]) or intravaginal pessary (Propess, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Malmö, Sweden [group B]). Before administration of PGE2 and after delivery, the patients answered a questionnaire investigating the anxiety and discomfort caused by cervical ripening.
RESULTS: Of the group, 22 women did not adequately complete the questionnaire; therefore 151 women were included in the study. Before cervical ripening, anxiety and discomfort did not significantly differ between the two study groups; more patients in group A than in group B declared they would have preferred the other form of application. The intensity of pain experienced during the application of PGE2 was higher in group B than in group A. For the future opportunity to choose the application necessary for cervical ripening, more patients in group B than in group A would change the form of application.
CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with the two forms of treatment appears to be equally good. The application of the intravaginal pessary causes more discomfort than the vaginal gel.