Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool to evaluate dystocia

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 89, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 902-908

  Spörri, Stefan ^a,b   Hänggi, Willy ^a   Braghetti, Antonio ^a   Vock, Peter ^a   Schneider, Henning ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR COMPLICATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NULLIPARA; PELVIMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PELVIMETRY; PREGNANCY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0343683351     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00148-8     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. The Cesarean Birth Task Force. NIH consensus development statement on cesarean childbirth. Obstet Gynecol 1981;57:537-45.
2. Boylan P, Frankowski R. Dystocia, parity and the cesarean problem. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:455-6.
3. Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean: A 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:255-8.
4. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Liss T. Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise. Am J Public Health 1987;77:955-9.
5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dystocia. ACOG technical bulletin no. 137. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1989.
6. Beers GJ. Biological effects of weak electromagnetic fields from 0 Hz to 200 MHz: A survey of the literature with special emphasis on possible magnetic resonance effects. Magn Reson Imaging 1989;7:309-31.
7. Spörri S, Gyr T, Schollerer A, Werlen S, Schneider H. Methods, techniques and assessment criteria in obstetric pelvimetry. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol 1994;198:37-46.
8. Caldwell WE, Moloy HC. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labour with a suggested classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1933;26:479-505.
9. Friedman EA, Taylor MB. A modified nomographic aid for x-ray cephalopelvimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;105:1110-5.
10. Rose BI, McCallum WD. A simplified method for estimating fetal weight using ultrasound measurements. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69: 671-5.
11. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hankins GDV, et al, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 20th ed. Stamford (CT): Appleton and Lange, 1997:461-72.
12. Morgan MA, Thurnau GR. Efficacy of the fetal-pelvic index in nulliparous women at high risk for fetal-pelvic disproportion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:810-4.
13. Schwarz GS, Kirkpatrick RH, Tovel HM. Correlation of cephalopelvimetry to obstetrical outcome with special reference to radiologic disproportion. Radiology 1956;67:854-62.
14. Mole RH. Childhood cancer after prenatal exposure to diagnostic x-ray examinations in Britain. Br J Cancer 1990;62:152-68.
15. Russell JG, Richards B. A review of pelvimetry data. Br J Radiol 1971;44:780-4.
16. Pfammatter Th, Marincek B, von Schulthess GK, Dudenhausen JW. MR pelvimetric reference values. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1990;153:706-10.
17. Aronson D, Kier R. CT pelvimetry: The foveae are not an accurate landmark for the level of the ischial spines. Am J Roentgenol 1991;156:527-30.
18. Friedman EA. Labor: Clinical evaluation and management. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1978.
19. Thom MH, Chan KK, Studd JW. Outcome of normal and dysfunctional labor in different racial groups. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;135:495-8.
20. Yudkin PL, Redman CW. Caesarean section dissected, 1978-1983. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:135-44.
21. Read AW, Prendiville WJ, Dawes VP, Stanley FJ. Cesarean section and operative vaginal delivery in low-risk primiparous women, Western Australia. Am J Public Health 1994;84:37-42.
22. Pickhardt MG, Martin JN, Meydrech EF, Blake PG, Martin RW, Perry KG, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: Are there useful and valid predictors of success or failure? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1811-9.