Evaluation of the labour process with serial transperineal ultrasonography and prediction of the type of birth
-
Ayca Nazli Bulut
and
Venhar Ceyhan
Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to follow the birth process with transperineal ultrasonography (TPU) and predict the delivery method using angle of progression (AOP).
Methods
The study included 134 patients. The AOP was examined with TPU in the lithotomy position applied at 4-h intervals, not at a time of straining or contractions. The relationship was examined between AOP and those who continued with vaginal delivery, and those who underwent caesarean section delivery.
Results
A total of 122 (91%) patients had vaginal delivery and 12 (9%) patients had cesarean delivery. In patients giving vaginal delivery, progress in AOP was observed in every 4-h measurement, but not in patients with cesarean section. In the ROC analysis, if 70% sensitivity and 75% specificity with AOP degree >132.5°, the patient was expected to have vaginal delivery with a probability of 77.5% (95% CI 0.62–0.93; p=0.002).
Conclusions
Rather than repeating digital examinations, the labour process can be monitored with serial TPU and the type of delivery can be predicted. There is a need for further studies for the measurement of AOP with TPU to become a part of clinical practice in the monitoring of the whole labour process.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained fSm all individuals included in this study.
Ethical approval: Approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee of Kayseri Education and Research Hospital. (Ethical approval; Date: 27.02.2020. Reference number: 2020/10). All the study procedures were applied in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration.
References
1. Ravanos, K, Dagklis, T, Petousis, S, Margioula-Siarkou, C, Prapas, Y, Prapas, N. Factors implicated in the initiation of human parturition in term and preterm labor: a review. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015;838:1–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1076783.Search in Google Scholar
2. Harrison, MS, Ali, S, Pasha, O, Saleem, S, Althabe, F, Berrueta, M, et al. A prospective population-based study of maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes in the setting of prolonged labor, obstructed labor and failure to progress in low- and middle income countries. Reprod Health 2015:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-12-S2-S9.Search in Google Scholar
3. Angeby, K, Wilde-Larsson, B, Hildingsson, I, Sandin-Bojö, A. Prevalence of prolonged latent phase and labor outcomes: review of birth records in a Swedish population. J Midwifery Women Health 2018:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12704.Search in Google Scholar
4. Zhu, BP, Grigorescu, V, Le, T, Lin, M, Copeland, G, Barone, M, Turabelidze, G. Labor dystocia and its association with interpregnancy interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;19:121–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.12.016.Search in Google Scholar
5. Nizard, J, Haberman, S, Paltieli, Y, Gonen, R, Ohel, G, Nicholson, D, Ville, Y. How reliable is the determination of cervical dilation? Comparison of vaginal examination with spatial position-tracking ruler. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:402.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.002.Search in Google Scholar
6. Lavender, T, Cuthbert, A, Smyth, RM. Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;8:CD005461. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005461.pub5.Search in Google Scholar
7. Bonet, M, Oladapo, OT, Souza, JP, Gülmezoglu, AM. Diagnostic accuracy of the partograph alert and action lines to predict adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG 2019;126:1524. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15884.Search in Google Scholar
8. Yeo, L, Romero, R. Sonographic evaluation in the second stage of labor to improve the assessment of labor progress and its outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:253–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6336.Search in Google Scholar
9. Tutschek, B, Braun, T, Chantraine, F, Henrich, W. A study of progress of labour using intrapartum translabial ultrasound, assessing head station, direction, and angle of descent. BJOG 2011;118:62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02775.x.Search in Google Scholar
10. ISUOG Practice Guideline. Intrapartum ultrasound. https://www.isuog.org/resource/intrapartum-ultrasound-practice-guideline.html [Accessed 10 July 2018].Search in Google Scholar
11. Kalache, KD, D€uckelmann, AM, Michaelis, SA, Lange, J, Cichon, G, Dudenhausen, JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the “angle of progression” predict the mode of delivery?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:326–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6294.Search in Google Scholar
12. D€uckelmann, AM, Bamberg, C, Michaelis, SA, Lange, J, Nonnenmacher, A, Dudenhausen, JW, et al. Measurement of fetal head descent using the “angle of progression” on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:216–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7521.Search in Google Scholar
13. Barbera, AF, Pombar, X, Perugino, G, Lezotte, DC, Hobbins, JC. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:313–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6329.Search in Google Scholar
14. Eggebø, TM, Heien, C, Økland, I, Gjessing, LK, Romundstad, P, Salvesen, KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:199–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5360.Search in Google Scholar
15. Hassan, WA, Eggebø, T, Ferguson, M, Gillett, A, Studd, J, Pasupathy, D, et al. The sonopartogram: a novel method for recording progress of labor by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43:189–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13212.Search in Google Scholar
16. Molina, FS, Terra, R, Carrillo, MP, Puertas, A, Nicolaides, KH. What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36:493–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7709.Search in Google Scholar
17. Levy, R, Zaks, S, Ben-Arie, A, Perlman, S, Hagay, Z, Vaisbuch, E. Can angle of progression in pregnant women before onset of labor predict mode of delivery?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:332–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11195.Search in Google Scholar
18. Eggebø, TM, Hassan, WA, Salvesen, KÅ, Lindjorn, E, Lees, CC. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: a two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13210.Search in Google Scholar
19. Neto, RHC, Viana Junior, AB, Moron, AF, Junior, EA, Carvalho, FHC, Feitosaa, HN. Assessment of the angle of progression and distance perineum-head in the prediction of type of delivery and duration of labor using intrapartum ultrasonography. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1666818.Search in Google Scholar
20. Chor, CM, Poon, LCY, Leung, TY. Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1369946.Search in Google Scholar
21. Bishop, EH. Pelvıc scorıng for electıve inductıon. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266.Search in Google Scholar
22. Kamel, R, Negm, S, Montaguti, E, Dodaro, MG, Brunelli, E, Di Donna, G, Soliman, E, Sharaf, MF, ElHarty, AS, Youssef, A. Reliability of transperinea ultrasound for the assessment of the angle of progression in labor using parasagittal approach versus midsagittal approach. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;78:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1678143.Search in Google Scholar
23. Frıck, A, Kostıv, V, Vojtassakova, D, Akolekar, R, Nıcolaıdes, KH. Comparison of different methods of measuring angle of progression in the prediction of labor outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.21913.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Global approach of the cesarean section rates
- Review
- Cesarean section one hundred years 1920–2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Non-adherence to labor guidelines in cesarean sections done for failed induction and arrest of dilation
- Retrospective study of maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction compared to spontaneous start of labour in women with one previous birth in uncomplicated pregnancies ≥ 41+3
- Management of labor after external cephalic version
- Evaluation of the labour process with serial transperineal ultrasonography and prediction of the type of birth
- Comparative study regarding effect of pH on Misoprostol in induction of labor in full term primigravida pregnant women, a double blind randomized controlled trial
- Comparison of the rates of preterm birth and low birth weight of vanishing twin and primary pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technology
- Obstetric outcomes of pregnancy complicated by urolithiasis: a retrospective cohort study
- Serum kallistatin level is decreased in women with preeclampsia
- An observational study to assess Italian obstetrics providers’ knowledge about preventive practices and diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus
- Predictive values of clinical parameters and biophysical and biochemical markers in the first trimester for the detection of small-for-gestational age fetuses
- Original Articles – Newborns
- Antenatal and perinatal outcomes of refugees in high income countries
- Individualized sex-specific birth weight percentiles for gestational age based on maternal height and weight
- Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) for preventing prematurity-related bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD): 7-year follow-up of the European Union Nitric Oxide (EUNO) trial
- Erratum
- Risk factors associated with adverse fetal outcomes in pregnancies affected by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a secondary analysis of the WAPM study on COVID-19
- Acknowledgment
- Acknowledgment
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Global approach of the cesarean section rates
- Review
- Cesarean section one hundred years 1920–2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Non-adherence to labor guidelines in cesarean sections done for failed induction and arrest of dilation
- Retrospective study of maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction compared to spontaneous start of labour in women with one previous birth in uncomplicated pregnancies ≥ 41+3
- Management of labor after external cephalic version
- Evaluation of the labour process with serial transperineal ultrasonography and prediction of the type of birth
- Comparative study regarding effect of pH on Misoprostol in induction of labor in full term primigravida pregnant women, a double blind randomized controlled trial
- Comparison of the rates of preterm birth and low birth weight of vanishing twin and primary pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technology
- Obstetric outcomes of pregnancy complicated by urolithiasis: a retrospective cohort study
- Serum kallistatin level is decreased in women with preeclampsia
- An observational study to assess Italian obstetrics providers’ knowledge about preventive practices and diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus
- Predictive values of clinical parameters and biophysical and biochemical markers in the first trimester for the detection of small-for-gestational age fetuses
- Original Articles – Newborns
- Antenatal and perinatal outcomes of refugees in high income countries
- Individualized sex-specific birth weight percentiles for gestational age based on maternal height and weight
- Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) for preventing prematurity-related bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD): 7-year follow-up of the European Union Nitric Oxide (EUNO) trial
- Erratum
- Risk factors associated with adverse fetal outcomes in pregnancies affected by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a secondary analysis of the WAPM study on COVID-19
- Acknowledgment
- Acknowledgment
