Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:24:48.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRAPARTUM SONOGRAPHY: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF LABOUR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

W A HASSAN  and
B TUTSCHEK
W A HASSAN*
Affiliation:
Fetal Medicine Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.
B TUTSCHEK
Affiliation:
Center of Fetal Medicine and Gynecological Ultrasound, Basel, Switzerland. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
*
W A Hassan, Fetal Medicine Department, Rosie Hospital, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 2 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Cunningham, FG, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, Gilstrap, LC, Hauth, JC, Wenstrom, KD. Mechanisms of normal labour. In: Cunningham, FG, MacDonald, pC, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, Gilstrap, LC, Hankins, GDVet al., (eds.) Williams Obstetrics, 21st edn.New York: McGraw Hill; 2001; 291–307.Google Scholar
2Crichton, D. A reliable method of establishing the level of the fetal head descent in obstetrics. South Afr J Obstet Gynaecol 1974 Apr; 48: 784–7.Google Scholar
3Gibbs, R, Karlan, B, Haney, F, Nygaard, I. Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 10th edn.Philidelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
4Norwitz, ER, Robinson, JN, Repke, JT. Labour and delivery. In: Gabbe, SG, Niebyl, JR, Simpson, JL (eds.). Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, 4th edn.New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2001; 353–94.Google Scholar
5Cunningham, FG, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, Gilstrap, LC, Hauth, JC, Wenstrom, KD. Anatomy of the reproductive tract. In: Cunningham, FG, MacDonald, pC, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, Gilstrap, LC, Hankins, GDV, Clark, SL (eds.) Williams Obstetrics, 21st edn.New York: McGraw Hill; 2001; 31–61.Google Scholar
6Dupuis, O, Silveira, R, Zentner, A, Dittmar, A, Gaucherand, P, Cucherat, M, et al.Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 868–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Dietz, HP, Lanzarone, V. Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005 Feb; 25 (2): 165–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Dietz, HP, Moore, KH, Steensma, AB. Antenatal pelvic organ mobility is associated with delivery mode. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003 Feb; 43 (1): 70–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Ecker, JL, Chen, KT, Cohen, AP, Riley, LE, Lieberman, ES. Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing maternal age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001 Oct; 185 (4): 883–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Murphy, DJ, Liebling, RE, Verity, L, Swingler, R, Patel, R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 2001 Oct 13; 358 (9289): 1203–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Rozenberg, P, Goffinet, F, Hessabi, M. Comparison of the Bishop score, ultrasonographically measured cervical length, and fetal fibronectin assay in predicting time until delivery and type of delivery at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000 Jan; 182 (1 Pt 1): 108–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Divon, MY, Ferber, A, Nisell, H, Westgren, M. Male gender predisposes to prolongation of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002 Oct; 187 (4): 1081–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Rane, SM, Guirgis, RR, Higgins, B, Nicolaides, KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004 Oct; 24 (5): 538–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Eggebo, TM, Gjessing, LK, Heien, C, Smedvig, E, Okland, I, Romundstad, Pet al., Prediction of labour and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 387–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Eggebø, TM, Heien, C, Økland, I, Gjessing, LK, Romundstad, P, Salvesen, KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head–perineum distance before induction of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008 Aug; 32 (2): 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Henrich, W, Dudenhausen, J, Fuchs, I, Kämena, A, Tutschek, B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006 Nov; 28 (6): 753–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Barbera, AF, Imani, F, Becker, T, Lezotte, DC, Hobbins, JC. Anatomic relationship between the pubic symphysis and ischial spines and its clinical significance in the assessment of fetal head engagement and station during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009 Mar; 33 (3): 320–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Bamberg, C, Scheuermann, S, Slowinski, T, Dückelmann, AM, Vogt, M, Nguyen-Dobinsky, TN, et al.Relationship between fetal head station established using an open magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the angle of progression determined by transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Jun; 37 (6): 712–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Bamberg, C, Rademacher, G, Güttler, F, Teichgräber, U, Cremer, M, Bührer, C, et al.Human birth observed in real-time open magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012 Jun; 206 (6): 505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Levy, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Lewin, D, Sadoul, G, Beuret, T. Measuring the height of a cephalic presentation: an objective assessment of station. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1977; 7 (6): 369–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Voskresinsky, S. Bio-mechanism in labour (in Russian) the discrete-wave theory. Minsk: Ltd “Polibig”, 1996. -186p. ISBN 985-6178-11-8.Google Scholar
23Akmal, S, Tsoi, E, Kametas, N, Howard, R, Nicolaides, KH. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002; 12: 172–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Sherer, DM, Miodovik, M, Bradley, KS, Langer, O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Sherer, DM, Miodovik, M, Bradley, KS, Langer, O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 264–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Souka, AP, Haritos, T, Basayiannis, K, Noikokyri, N, Antsaklis, A. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labour. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003 Jan; 13 (1): 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Knight, D, Newham, JP, Mckenna, M, Evans, S. A comparison of abdominal and vaginal examinations for the diagnosis of engagement of the fetal head. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 33: 154–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Sherer, DM, Abulafia, O. Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003 May; 21 (5): 430–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Sherer, DM, Schwartz, BM, Mahon, TR. Intrapartum ultrasonographic depiction of fetal malpositioning and mild parietal bone compression in association with uterine leiomyoma. J Matern fetal Med 1999; 8: 28–31.Google ScholarPubMed
30Dupuis, O, Ruimark, S, Corinne, D, Simone, T, André, D, René-Charles, R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 123 (2): 193–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Akmal, S, Tsoi, E, Howard, R, Osei, E, Nicolaides, KH. Investigation of occiput posterior delivery by intrapartum sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004 Sep; 24 (4): 425–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Blasi, I, D'Amico, R, Fenu, V, Volpe, A, Fuchs, I, Henrich, W, et al.Sonographic assessment of fetal spine and head position during the first and second stages of labor for the diagnosis of persistent occiput posterior position: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010 Feb; 35 (2): 210–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Henrich, W, Dudenhausen, J, Fuchs, I, Kämena, A, Tutschek, B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006 Nov; 28 (6): 753–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Fuchs, I, Tutschek, B, Henrich, W. Visualization of the fetal fontanels and skull sutures by three-dimensional translabial ultrasound during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008 Apr; 31 (4): 484–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Barbera, 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 Mar; 33 (3): 313–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Ghi, T, Farina, A, Pedrazzi, A, Rizzo, N, Pelusi, G, Pilu, G. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009 Mar; 33 (3): 331–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Kalache, KD, Dückelmann, 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 Mar; 33 (3): 326–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Molina, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Tutschek, 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 Jan; 118 (1): 62–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Youssef, A, Maroni, E, Raqusa, A, De Musso, F, Salsi, G, Iammarino, MTet al., The fetal head–symphysis distance: a simple and reliable ultrasound index of fetal station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012 Nov. doi:10.1002/uog.12335 [Epub ahead of print].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Torkildsen, EA, Salvesen, KÅ, Eggebø, TM. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Jun; 37 (6): 702–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Ghi, T, Contro, E, Farina, A, Nobile, M, Pilu, G. Three-dimensional ultrasound in monitoring progression of labour: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010 Oct; 36 (4): 500–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Friedman, EA. Primigravid labour and Labour in multiparous a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955; 6: 567–9 & 1956; 8: 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Letic, M. Inaccuracy in cervical dilatation assessment and the progress of labour monitoring. Medical Hypothesis 2003; 60 (2): 199–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Phelps, JY, Higby, K, Smyth, MH, Ward, JA, Arredondo, F, Mayer, AR. Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 942–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Zilanti, M, Azuaga, A, Calderon, F, Pages, G, Mendoza, G. Monitoring the effacement of the uterine cervix by transperineal sonography: a new perspective. J Ultrasound Med 1995 Oct; 719–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Lucidi, RS, Blumenfeld, LA, Chez, RA. Cervimetry: a review of methods for measuring cervical dilatation during labour. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000; 55: 312–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Zimerman, AL, Smolin, A, Maymon, R, Weinraub, Z, Herman, A. Intrapartum measurement of cervical dilatation using translabial 3-D ultrasonography: correlation with digital examination and interobserver and intraobserver agreement assessment. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28:1289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Hassan, WA, Eggebo, TM, Ferguson, , Lees, C. A simple 2D ultrasound technique to assess intrapartum cervical dilatation: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012 Oct. doi:10.1002/uog.12316 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar