Literature DB >> 35576076

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

Edi Vaisbuch1,2, Roni Levy3,4, Tamar Katzir1, Yoav Brezinov1, Ella Khairish1, Shira Hadad1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the validity of intrapartum ultrasound (IPUS), and particularly the angle of progression (AOP), in predicting delivery mode when measured in real-life clinical practice among women with protracted second stages of labor.
METHODS: Using electronic medical records, nulliparous women with a second stage of labor of ≥ 3 h ("prolonged") and a documented AOP measurement during the second stage were identified. The ability of a single AOP measurement in "prolonged" second stage to predict a vaginal delivery (VD) was assessed. Fetal head descent, measured by AOP change/h (calculated from serial measurements), was compared between women who delivered vaginally and those who had a cesarean delivery (CD) for arrest of descent.
RESULTS: Of the 191 women who met the inclusion criteria, 62 (32.5%) delivered spontaneously, 96 (50.2%) had a vacuum extraction (VE) and 33 (17.3%) had a CD. The mean AOP was wider among women who had VD (spontaneous or VE) compared to those who had CD (153° ± 19 vs. 133° ± 17, p < 0.001). Wider AOPs were associated with higher rates of VD and an AOP ≥ 127° was associated with a VD rate of 88.6% (148/167). Among the 87 women who had more than one AOP measurement, the mean AOP change per hour was higher in the VD group than in the CD group (15.1° ± 11.4° vs. 6.2° ± 6.3°, p <  0.001).
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-assessed fetal head station in nulliparous women with a protracted second stage of labor can be an accurate and objective additive tool in predicting the mode and interval time to delivery in real-life clinical practice.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Angle of progression (AOP); Intrapartum ultrasound (IPUS); Mode of delivery; Nulliparous; Pregnancy; Prolonged second stage

Year:  2022        PMID: 35576076     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06469-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  36 in total

1.  Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor.

Authors:  E A Torkildsen; K Å Salvesen; T M Eggebø
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey; Alison G Cahill; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Dwight J Rouse
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor.

Authors:  B Tutschek; E A Torkildsen; T M Eggebø
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 7.299

4.  Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor.

Authors:  Chung Ming Chor; Liona Chiu Yee Poon; Tak Yeung Leung
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2017-10-03

5.  Reassessing the Duration of the Second Stage of Labor in Relation to Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity.

Authors:  Katherine L Grantz; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Ling Ma; Stefanie Hinkle; Vincenzo Berghella; Matthew K Hoffman; Uma M Reddy
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination.

Authors:  Olivier Dupuis; Silveira Ruimark; Dupont Corinne; Thevenet Simone; Dittmar André; Rudigoz René-Charles
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2005-05-31       Impact factor: 2.435

7.  Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes from primary cesarean delivery during the second compared with first stage of labor.

Authors:  James M Alexander; Kenneth J Leveno; Dwight J Rouse; Mark B Landon; Sharon Gilbert; Catherine Y Spong; Michael W Varner; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Margaret Harper; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; Oded Langer; Steven G Gabbe
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Accuracy of cervical assessment in the active phase of labour.

Authors:  E J Buchmann; E Libhaber
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound.

Authors:  A F Barbera; X Pombar; G Perugino; D C Lezotte; J C Hobbins
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 7.299

10.  Maternal and perinatal outcomes with increasing duration of the second stage of labor.

Authors:  Victoria M Allen; Thomas F Baskett; Colleen M O'Connell; Dolores McKeen; Alexander C Allen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 7.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.