Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry and the prediction of labor dystocia

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 106, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 919-926

  Zaretsky, Michael V ^a   Alexander, James M ^a   McIntire, Donald D ^a   Hatab, Mustapha R ^a   Twickler, Diane M ^a   Leveno, Kenneth J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; FETUS; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LABOR COMPLICATION; LABOR INDUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NULLIPARA; PELVIS; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SOFT TISSUE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TECHNIQUE; VOLUMETRY; X RAY PELVIMETRY;

ADULT; CEPHALOPELVIC DISPROPORTION; CESAREAN SECTION; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PELVIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; ROC CURVE;

EID: 27444435259     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000182575.81843.e7     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Baudelocque. L’art des accouchements. Nouvelle éd., 1789, t. l, 76-90.
2. Budin. Statistiques de la Maternité de Paris. L’Obstétrique, 1986, iii, 134. Photographie par les rayons × d’un bassin de Naegele. L’Obstetriqué, 1897, ii, 490.
3. Caldwell WE, Moloy HC. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1933;26:479-505.
4. Ball RP. Roentgen pelvimetry and cephalometry. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1936;62:798-810.
5. Mengert WF. Estimation of pelvic capacity. JAMA 1948;138:169-74.
6. Steer CM. X-ray pelvimetry and the outcome of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1958;76:118-31.
7. Hannah WJ. X-ray pelvimetry: a critical appraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965;91:333-41.
8. Parsons MT, Spellacy WN. Prospective randomized study of X-ray pelvimetry in the primigravida. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:76-9.
9. Laube DW, Varner MW, Cruikshank DP. A prospective evaluation of x-ray pelvimetry. JAMA 1981;246:2187-8.
10. Abitbol MM, Taylor UB, Castillo I, Rochelson BL. The cephalopelvic disproportion index: combined fetal sonography and x-ray pelvimetry for early detection of cephalopelvic disproportion. J Reprod Med 1991;36:369-73.
11. Spörri S, Thoeny HC, Raio L, Lachat R, Vock P, Schneider H. MR imaging pelvimetry: a useful adjunct in the treatment of women at risk for dystocia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:137-44.
12. Morgan MA, Thurnau GR, Fishburne JI Jr. The fetal pelvic index as an indicator of fetal pelvic disproportion: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:608-13.
13. 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.
14. Friedman EA, Taylor MB. A modified nomographic aid for x-ray cephalopelvimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;105:1110-5.
15. Dystocia and augmentation of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 49. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1445-54.
16. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-45.
17. Ferguson JE, Newberry YG, DeAngelis GA, Finnerty JJ, Agarwal S, Turkheimer E. The fetal-pelvic index has minimal utility in predicting fetal-pelvic disproportion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:1186-92.