Literature DB >> 20533441

What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent?

F S Molina1, R Terra, M P Carrillo, A Puertas, K H Nicolaides.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were, first, to establish the agreement between digital and ultrasound assessment of occipital position and, second, to evaluate the repeatability of the measurements of head direction, angle of the middle line, progression distance and angle of progression in women in the second stage of labor.
METHODS: Digital examination and then transabdominal ultrasound examination was performed on 50 women in the second stage of labor to determine the fetal occipital position. We also obtained three-dimensional (3D) blocks of the fetal head by transperineal sonography, and two experts in 3D ultrasound measured head direction, angle of the middle line, progression distance and angle of progression. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% CIs, and Bland-Altman analysis, were used to evaluate intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of measurements.
RESULTS: The fetal head position, determined by ultrasound examination, was occiput anterior in 33 (66%) cases and occiput lateral in 17 (34%) cases. Vaginal digital examination failed to identify the correct fetal head position by more than 45° in 33 (66%) cases. All four 3D ultrasound measurements were reproducible but the progression angle had the highest intraclass correlation coefficient for the same observer (0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97) and for two different operators (0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.91). The progression angle was also the measurement for which smaller limits of agreement (LOA) were found in the Bland-Altman test, performed to calculate the intraobserver (bias 0.9; LOA, - 9.2 to 11.1%) and interobserver (bias 1.5; LOA, - 15.4 to 18.3%) variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital pelvic examination for determining the fetal head position during labor is not accurate. The most reproducible of the 3D measurements for progression of the fetal head in labor is the progression angle.
Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20533441     DOI: 10.1002/uog.7709

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


  11 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

Review 2.  The effectiveness of intrapartum  ultrasonography in assessing cervical dilatation, head station and position: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yaw Amo Wiafe; Bill Whitehead; Heather Venables; Emmanuel Kweku Nakua
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2016-10-06

3.  Dynamic Changes in the Myometrium during the Third Stage of Labor, Evaluated Using Two-Dimensional Ultrasound, in Women with Normal and Abnormal Third Stage of Labor and in Women with Obstetric Complications.

Authors:  Manasi Patwardhan; Edgar Hernandez-Andrade; Hyunyoung Ahn; Steven J Korzeniewski; Alyse Schwartz; Sonia S Hassan; Roberto Romero
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  Prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery by transperineal ultrasound performed just after full cervical dilatation is determined.

Authors:  Saeko Kameyama; Akira Sato; Hiroshi Miura; Jin Kumagai; Naoki Sato; Dai Shimizu; Kenichi Makino; Yukihiro Terada
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 1.314

5.  Intrapartum ultrasound use in clinical practice as a predictor of delivery mode during prolonged second stage of labor.

Authors:  Edi Vaisbuch; Roni Levy; Tamar Katzir; Yoav Brezinov; Ella Khairish; Shira Hadad
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of fetal spine position.

Authors:  Salvatore Gizzo; Alessandra Andrisani; Marco Noventa; Giorgia Burul; Stefania Di Gangi; Omar Anis; Emanuele Ancona; Donato D'Antona; Giovanni Battista Nardelli; Guido Ambrosini
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Intrapartum ultrasound: viewpoint of midwives and parturient women and reproducibility.

Authors:  Adrielle Van Adrichem; Ellen Faes; Kristof Kinget; Yves Jacquemyn
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2018-06-06

8.  Using transperineal ultrasound to predict labor onset-reply.

Authors:  Yang Yu; Fanghua Peng; Zhikun Zhang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-06

9.  Acceptability of Intrapartum Ultrasound Monitoring - Experience from a Romanian Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  D G Iliescu; S Tudorache; M L Cara; R Dragusin; O Carbunaru; M Florea; C Patru; L Zorila; A Dragoescu; L Novac; N Cernea
Journal:  Curr Health Sci J       Date:  2015-12-22

Review 10.  Three-dimensional/four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound: clinical utility and future prospects.

Authors:  Ginevra Salsi; Ilaria Cataneo; Gaia Dodaro; Nicola Rizzo; Gianluigi Pilu; Mar Sanz Gascón; Aly Youssef
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2017-09-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.