Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Women`s Health Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4048
ISSN (Online): 1875-6581

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Prediction of Successful Induction of Labor using Ultrasonic Fetal Parameters

Author(s): Wassan Nori Mohammed Hassan, Fatin Shallal and Ali B. Roomi*

Volume 18, Issue 1, 2022

Published on: 05 January, 2021

Article ID: e201221189952 Pages: 6

DOI: 10.2174/1573404817666210105151803

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetrical procedure. Bishop's score was the single predictor element used by practitioners to assess the risk of failure, which led to an increase in cesarean sections (CS). Ultrasound (US) examination was proposed since the variability limitations of Bishop score warranted alternative assessment tools.

Objective: This study verifies how the US and other maternal parameters are used in the transperineal approach as an indication and as a predictor of successful induction.

Material and Methods: A prospective clinical study of 100 participants was conducted with term singleton pregnancy referred for IOL and who fit the criteria of this study. Their maternal parameters and fetal head to perineum distance (HPD), measured by the transperineal US, were calculated before the induction. After the induction, the patients were stratified into two groups, vaginal delivery (68%) and CS (32%). The estimated time interval to delivery was also recorded.

Results: None of the maternal parameters was significant; the P-values of maternal age, parity, body mass index (BMI), gestational age, and weight of the fetus were 0.75, 0.75, 0.69, 0.81, and 0.81, respectively. One-way ANOVA test estimated the most significant factors for inducing labor. Fetal HPD and induction to delivery interval were remarkably significant in both groups <0.0001.

Conclusion: The shorter the HPD (<47.65±1.66 mm), the higher the possibility of vaginal delivery and a shorter delivery interval. By contrast, the longer HPD (>52.56±1.93mm), the lower the possibility of vaginal delivery and a longer delivery interval. These promising results may serve as a valuable tool in predicting a mode of delivery.

Keywords: Induction of labor, bishop score, transperneal ultrasound, head to perineum distance, induction to delivery interval, fetal parameters.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Garcia-Simon R, Oros D, Gracia-Cólera D, et al. Cervix assessment for the management of labor induction: Reliability of cervical length and bishop score determined by residents. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41(3): 377-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jog.12553] [PMID: 25303725]
[2]
Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One 2016; 11(2): e0148343.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343] [PMID: 26849801]
[3]
Usman S, Barton H, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Lees CC. Ultrasound is better tolerated than vaginal examination in and before labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 59(3): 362-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12864] [PMID: 30024022]
[4]
Eggebø TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KÅ, Lindtjørn E, Lees CC. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: A two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43(2): 195-201.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.13210] [PMID: 24105705]
[5]
Bellussi F, Ghi T, Youssef A, et al. The use of intrapartum ultrasound to diagnose malpositions and cephalic malpresentations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217(6): 633-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.025] [PMID: 28743440]
[6]
Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, et al. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: A multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217(1): 69.e1-69.e10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.009] [PMID: 28327433]
[7]
Minajagi PS, Srinivas SB, Hebbar S. Predicting the mode of delivery by angle of progression (AOP) before the onset of labor by transperineal ultrasound in nulliparous women. Curr Womens Health Rev 2020; 16(1): 39-45.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1573404815666191113153204]
[8]
Khazardoost S, Ghotbizadeh Vahdani F, Latifi S, et al. Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery compared to bishop score: A cross-sectional study. BMC Preg Childbirth 2016; 16(1): 330.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1090-x] [PMID: 27793113]
[9]
Migliorelli F, Rueda C, Angeles MA, et al. Cervical consistency index and risk of Cesarean delivery after induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 53(6): 798-803.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.20152] [PMID: 30328168]
[10]
Levine LD, Downes KL, Parry S, Elovitz MA, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218(2): 254.e1-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603] [PMID: 29224730]
[11]
Farhan FS. Prediction of the mode of delivery in women subjected to induction of labor by measurement of angle of progression. Mustansiriya Med J 2016; 15(3): 5-10.
[12]
Bajpai N, Bhakta R, Kumar P, Rai L, Hebbar S. Manipal cervical scoring system by transvaginal ultrasound in predicting successful labour induction. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(5): QC04-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/12315.5970] [PMID: 26155521]
[13]
Saroyo YB, Danarti MD. Prediction of vaginal delivery using fetal head descent assessed using transperineal ultrasound. Indonesian J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 11: 149-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.32771/inajog.v5i3.541]
[14]
Peng Fanghua. Using transperineal ultrasound to predict labor onset. Annals Trans Med 2019; 7: 718.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.12.11]
[15]
Bamberg C, Rademacher G, Güttler F, et al. Human birth observed in real-time open magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206(6): 505.e1-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.011] [PMID: 22425409]
[16]
Ali J, Hebbar S. Ultrasound assessment of foetal head-perineum distance prior to induction of labour as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2019; 69(2): 129-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1120-x] [PMID: 30956466]
[17]
Ghi T, Eggebø T, Lees C, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: Intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52(1): 128-39.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.19072] [PMID: 29974596]
[18]
Thuillier C, Roy S, Peyronnet V, Quibel T, Nlandu A, Rozenberg P. Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218(3): 341.e1-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.228] [PMID: 29291413]
[19]
Carvalho Neto RH, Viana Junior AB, Moron AF, Araujo Júnior E, Carvalho FHC, Feitosa 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; 6: 1-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1666818] [PMID: 31505974]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
12
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy