Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 199-204

  Eggebo T M ^a   Heien, C ^a   Okland I ^a   Gjessing, L K ^a   Romundstad, P ^b   Salvesen, K A ^c  

^a STAVANGER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^c TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Bishop score; Cervical angle; Cervical length; Fetal head perineum distance; Induction of labor; Occiput posterior; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CESAREAN SECTION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; FEMALE; FETAL HEAD PERINEUM DISTANCE; FETUS; HEAD POSITION; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; NULLIPARA; PARITY; PERINEUM; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SKIN SURFACE; ULTRASOUND; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CERVICAL RIPENING; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; FETUS; HEAD; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; LABOR ONSET; LABOR, INDUCED; PERINEUM; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, THIRD; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROC CURVE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 51949105468     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.5360     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Gjessing LK. Results from Department of Obstetrics, Stavanger University Hospital, 1997-2007; http://www.kvinneklinikken-sus.com/01_results/obstetr/ publ_Bl_STANDARD.htm [Accessed 1 September 2007].
2. Government Statistical Service. NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2003-04. Bulletin 2005/10: March 2005; http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/10/70/ 61/04107061.pdf [Accessed 1 September 2007].
3. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 917-922.
4. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 600-607.
5. Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 287-293.
6. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268.
7. Hendrix NW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC, Magann EF, Martin JN Jr, Devoe LD. Bishop score: a poor diagnostic test to predict failed induction versus vaginal delivery. South Med J 1998; 91: 248-252.
8. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 623-628.
9. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 17: 315-322.
10. Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Omar R, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 227-233.
11. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 538-549.
12. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of the need for Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 45-48.
13. Rane SM, Pandis GK, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 40-44.
14. Laencina AM, Sanchez FG, GimenezJH, Martinez MS, Martinez JA, Vizcaino VM. Comparison of ultrasonographic cervical length and the Bishop score in predicting successful labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 799-804.
15. Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound 1998; 7: 183-187.
16. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Chastang C, Ville Y. Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low Bishop score. BJOG 2005; 112: 192-196.
17. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Ville Y. [Comparison of pre-induction ultrasonographic cervical length and Bishop score in predicting risk of cesarean section after labor induction with prostaglandins.] Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2005; 33: 17-22.
18. Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 573-584.
19. Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Økland I, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 387-391.
20. Valentin L, Bergelin I. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of cervical length and width in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 256-262.
21. Dietz HP, Lanzarone V, Simpson JM. Predicting operative delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 409-415.
22. Bartha JL, Romero-Carmona R, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 155-159.
23. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 568-573.
24. World Health Organization. Department of Reproductive Health and Research. Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth : a guide for midwives and doctors. World Health Organization: Geneva, 2003.
25. Peregrine E, O'Brien P, Jauniaux E. Impact on delivery outcome of ultrasonographic fetal head position prior to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 618-625.
26. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Howard R, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasonographic occiput position in early labour in the prediction of caesarean section. BJOG 2004; 111: 532-536.
27. Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, Gjessing LK, Smedvig E, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Prediction of labour and delivery by ascertaining the fetal head position with transabdominal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabour rupture of membranes after 37 weeks. Ultraschall Med 2008; 29: 179-183.
28. Sherer DM. Intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 123-139.
29. Dietz HP, Lanzarone V. Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 165-168.