{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04232469993682881, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01958307012002527, 'mean_word_length': 5.46530612244898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[''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 (IUGR),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.