Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Intrapartum Ultrasound and MRI for Detection of Station 0 in Labor

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management

Abstract

Ultrasound is the first-line imaging modality for pregnant women and is increasingly used to document fetal head position and station within the maternal pelvis at various stages of labor [1–3]. Transperineal ultrasound during childbirth is also an established method to evaluate the labor progress and the success of vaginal operative deliveries [4–8]. Very recently, transperineal ultrasound was applied successfully as a visual biofeedback technique at the second stage of labor, resulting in increased pushing efficacy [9, 10]. However, specific bony structures of the maternal pelvis, such as the ischial spines, are not discernible by ultrasound. Therefore, additive imaging modalities are needed to visualize an engaged fetal head.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ghi T, Youssef A, Maroni E, Arcangeli T, De Musso F, Bellussi F, Nanni M, Giorgetta F, Morselli-Labate AM, Iammarino MT, et al. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal head progression in active second stage of labor and mode of delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):430–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Popowski T, Porcher R, Fort J, Javoise S, Rozenberg P. Influence of ultrasound determination of fetal head position on mode of delivery: a pragmatic randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(5):520–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ramphul M, Ooi PV, Burke G, Kennelly MM, Said SA, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG. 2014;121(8):1029–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbera 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;33(3):313–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuerva MJ, Bamberg C, Tobias P, Gil MM, De La Calle M, Bartha JL. Use of intrapartum ultrasound in the prediction of complicated operative forceps delivery of fetuses in non-occiput posterior position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(6):687–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghi 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;33(3):331–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kamena A, Tutschek B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28(6):753–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalache KD, Duckelmann 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;33(3):326–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellussi F, Alcamisi L, Guizzardi G, Parma D, Pilu G. Traditionally vs sonographically coached pushing in second stage of labor: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):87–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilboa Y, Frenkel TI, Schlesinger Y, Rousseau S, Hamiel D, Achiron R, Perlman S. Visual biofeedback using transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):91–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Liao JB, Buhimschi CS, Norwitz ER. Normal labor: mechanism and duration. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2005;32(2):145–64. vii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Knight D, Newnham JP, McKenna M, Evans S. A comparison of abdominal and vaginal examinations for the diagnosis of engagement of the fetal head. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;33(2):154–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Crichton D. A reliable method of establishing the level of the fetal head in obstetrics. S Afr Med J. 1974;48(18):784–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Buchmann E, Libhaber E. Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;101(3):285–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sherer DM, Abulafia O. Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(5):430–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Iliescu DG, Adam G, Tudorache S, Antsaklis P, Cernea N. Quantification of fetal head direction using transperineal ultrasound: an easier approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(5):607–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Duckelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Nonnenmacher A, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD. Measurement of fetal head descent using the ‘angle of progression’ on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(2):216–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghi T, Contro E, Farina A, Nobile M, Pilu G. Three-dimensional ultrasound in monitoring progression of labor: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(4):500–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Molina 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(4):493–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Estroff JA. The growing role of MR imaging in the fetus. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(Suppl 2):S209–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zaretsky MV, McIntire DD, Twickler DM. Feasibility of the fetal anatomic and maternal pelvic survey by magnetic resonance imaging at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(4):997–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen MM, Coakley FV, Kaimal A, Laros RK Jr. Guidelines for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging use during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(2 Pt 1):333–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Clements H, Duncan KR, Fielding K, Gowland PA, Johnson IR, Baker PN. Infants exposed to MRI in utero have a normal paediatric assessment at 9 months of age. Br J Radiol. 2000;73(866):190–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kawabata I, Takahashi Y, Iwagaki S, Tamaya T. MRI during pregnancy. J Perinat Med. 2003;31(6):449–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kok RD, de Vries MM, Heerschap A, van den Berg PP. Absence of harmful effects of magnetic resonance exposure at 1.5 T in utero during the third trimester of pregnancy: a follow-up study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;22(6):851–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bangard C, Paszek J, Berg F, Eyl G, Kessler J, Lackner K, Gossmann A. MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets. Eur J Radiol. 2007;64(1):152–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hailey D. Open magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. Issues Emerg Health Technol. 2006;92:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bamberg C, Rademacher G, Guttler F, Teichgraber U, Cremer M, Buhrer C, Spies C, Hinkson L, Henrich W, Kalache KD, et al. Human birth observed in real-time open magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(6):505.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bamberg C, Deprest J, Sindhwani N, Teichgraberg U, Guttler F, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD, Henrich W. Evaluating fetal head dimension changes during labor using open magnetic resonance imaging. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(3):305–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sindhwani N, Bamberg C, Famaey N, Callewaert G, Dudenhausen JW, Teichgraber U, Deprest J. In vivo evidence of significant levator ani muscle stretch on MR images of a live childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):194.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Fotopoulou C, Slowinski T, Duckelmann AM, Teichgraber U, Streitparth F, Henrich W, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD. Angle of progression measurements of fetal head at term: a systematic comparison between open magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):161.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Slowinski T, Duckelmann AM, Vogt M, Nguyen-Dobinsky TN, Streitparth F, Teichgraber U, Henrich W, Dudenhausen JW, 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;37(6):712–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Barbera 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;33(3):320–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tutschek 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. 2010;118(1):62–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Iliescu D, Tudorache S, Dragusin R, Carbunaru O, Patru C, Florea M, Gheonea IA. The angle of progression at station 0 and in magnetic resonance and transperineal ultrasound assessment. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:748327.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Conflict of Interest: The author has no conflict of interest to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Christian Bamberg

Authors
  1. Christian Bamberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Bamberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Santa Maria Hospital, GVM Care and Research, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Malvasi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bamberg, C. (2021). Comparison of Intrapartum Ultrasound and MRI for Detection of Station 0 in Labor. In: Malvasi, A. (eds) Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57594-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57595-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation