Literature DB >> 18528923

Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor.

T M Eggebø1, C Heien, I Økland, L K Gjessing, P Romundstad, K A Salvesen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate fetal head-perineum distance measured by ultrasound imaging as a predictive factor for induction of labor, and to compare this distance with maternal factors, the Bishop score and ultrasound measurements of cervical length, cervical angle and occiput position.
METHODS: The study included 275 women admitted for induction of labor. The fetal head-perineum distance was measured by transperineal ultrasound imaging as the shortest distance from the outer bony limit of the fetal skull to the skin surface of the perineum. Cervical length and angle was measured by transvaginal ultrasound examination, and fetal head position was assessed by transabdominal ultrasound imaging. The Bishop score was assessed without knowledge of ultrasound measurements. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used for evaluation of the probability of a successful vaginal delivery. The time from induction to delivery was tested using Cox regression analysis with ultrasound measurements, parity and body mass index (BMI) as possible predictive factors.
RESULTS: Areas under the ROC curve for prediction of vaginal delivery were 62% (95% CI, 52-71%) for fetal head-perineum distance (P = 0.03), 61% (95% CI, 51-71%) for cervical length (P = 0.03), 63% (95% CI, 52-74%) for cervical angle (P = 0.02), 61% (95% CI, 52-70%) for Bishop score (P = 0.03) and 60% (95% CI, 51-69%) for BMI (P = 0.05). The Cesarean delivery rate was 22% among nulliparous and 5% among parous women (P < 0.01). Parity, fetal head-perineum distance, cervical length and cervical angle were contributing factors predicting vaginal delivery within 24 h in a Cox regression model. Occiput posterior position had no significant predictive value.
CONCLUSIONS: Fetal head-perineum distance measured by transperineal ultrasound examination can predict vaginal delivery after induction of labor, with a predictive value similar to that of ultrasonographically measured cervical length and the Bishop score. However, we judge none of these methods used alone to be good enough in a clinical setting. (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18528923     DOI: 10.1002/uog.5360

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  8 in total

1.  Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound for evaluating uterine contraction intensity in the second stage of labor.

Authors:  Miyuki Muramoto; Kiyotake Ichizuka; Junichi Hasegawa; Masamitsu Nakamura; Satoshi Dohi; Hiroshi Saito; Masaaki Nagatsuka
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 1.314

2.  Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Cesarean Delivery After Labor Induction.

Authors:  Valery A Danilack; Jennifer A Hutcheon; Elizabeth W Triche; David D Dore; Janet H Muri; Maureen G Phipps; David A Savitz
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of fetal head position, tip the scale: natural or instrumental delivery?

Authors:  G Adam; O Sirbu; C Voicu; D Dominic; Stefania Tudorache; N Cernea
Journal:  Curr Health Sci J       Date:  2013-12-29

4.  Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery compared to bishop score: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Soghra Khazardoost; Fahimeh Ghotbizadeh Vahdani; Sahar Latifi; Sedighe Borna; Maryam Tahani; Mohammad Ali Rezaei; Masoomeh Shafaat
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Transperineal ultrasound to predict vaginal deliveries.

Authors:  Paulo Martin Nowak; Edward Araujo Júnior
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-05

6.  Multitask Deep Neural Network for the Fully Automatic Measurement of the Angle of Progression.

Authors:  Yaosheng Lu; Dengjiang Zhi; Minghong Zhou; Fan Lai; Gaowen Chen; Zhanhong Ou; Rongdan Zeng; Shun Long; Ruiyu Qiu; Mengqiang Zhou; Xiaosong Jiang; Huijin Wang; Jieyun Bai
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 7.  Intrapartum sonography - eccentricity or necessity?

Authors:  Marzena Dębska; Piotr Kretowicz; Romuald Dębski
Journal:  J Ultrason       Date:  2015-06-30

8.  Agreement between transperineal ultrasound measurements and digital examinations of cervical dilatation during labor.

Authors:  Sigurlaug Benediktsdottir; Torbjørn M Eggebø; Kjell Å Salvesen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 3.007

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.