Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intrapartum Ultrasound and Bishop Score: A New Obstetric Tool

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management

  • 660 Accesses

Abstract

Induction of labor is defined as the artificial initiation of labor with the absence of concerted uterine activity or any evidence of active phase labor [1] and is met very frequently in obstetric daily practice, as it is applied at 20–30% of pregnant women [2, 3]. Induction of labor carries risks, and it has been blamed for increasing operated vaginal and cesarean delivery rates in both nulliparous and multiparous women when they are compared with women presenting with spontaneous onset of labor [4, 5]. In addition, some severe complications—including excessive uterine activity and fetal heart rate abnormalities—have been reported [6]. Therefore, induction of labor should be performed when the cervix has the ideal characteristics which could increase the possibilities for a successful labor induction [1].

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. Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(6):CD010762. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2.

  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guideline. Induction of Labour—Clinical Guideline (NICE, NHS); July 2008. http://publications.nice.org.uk/induction-oflabour-cg70. Accessed December 10, 2012.

  3. Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, van der Post JA, Pajkrt E, Opmeer BC, Mol BW. The bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):625–30. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1331024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Luthy DA, Malmgren JA, Zingheim RW. Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1511–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):698–704.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Res. 2019;8 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17587.1. pii: F1000 Faculty Rev-1829. eCollection 2019. Review

  7. Navve D, Orenstein N, Ribak R, Daykan Y, Shechter-Maor G, Biron-Shental T. Is the bishop-score significant in predicting the success of labor induction in multiparous women? J Perinatol. 2017;37(5):480–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.260. Epub 2017 Feb

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ivars J, Garabedian C, Devos P, Therby D, Carlier S, Deruelle P, et al. Simplified bishop score including parity predicts successful induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:309–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Banu S, Jaysahree V, Latha K. Study of comparison of transvaginal cervical length and modified Bishop’s score in predicting the mode of delivery at term following induction of labor. IJCRD. 2016;4(2):134–40.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alanwar A, Hussein SH, Allam HA, Hussein AM, Abdelazim IA, Abbas AM, Elsayed M. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length versus bishop score in labor induction at term for prediction of caesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;22:1–211.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, Jeong EH, Jung HJ, Oh KJ. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):198–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Boozarjomehri F, Timor-Tritsch I, Chaoc R, Fox HE. Transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix before labour: presence of cervical wedging is associated with shorter duration of induced labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:1081–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N, Antsaklis A. Sonographic cervical length measurement before labor induction in term nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2006;21(1):34–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zilianti M, Azuag A, Calderon F, Pages G, Mendoza G. Monitoring the effacement of the uterine cervix by trans-perineal sonography: a new perspective. J Ultrasound Med. 1995;14:719–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labour induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(5):1030–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. bishop score in labour induction at term: tolerability and prediction of caesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(5):568–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Loto OM, Ikuomola AA, Ayuba II, Onwudiegwu U. Comparative study of the outcome of induction of labor using 25 μg and 50 μg of vaginal misoprostol. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(11):2359–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bahadori F, Ayatollahi H, Naghavi-Behzad M, Khalkhali H, Naseri Z. Predicting factors on cervical ripening and response to induction in women pregnant over 37 weeks. Med Ultrason. 2013;15(3):191–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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;18:623–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roman H, Verspyck E, Vercoustre L, Degre S, Col JY, Firmin JM, et al. Does ultrasound examination when the cervix is unfavorable improve the prediction of failed labor induction? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:357–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;112:192–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bastani P, Hamid K, Abasalizadeh F, Pourmousa P, Ghatrehsamani F. Transvaginal ultrasonography compared with bishop score for predicting cesarean section after induction of labor. Int J Women's Health. 2011;3:277–80.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yang SH, Roh CR, Kim JH. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:375–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Laencina AM, Sanchez FG, Gimenez JH, Martinez MS, Martinez JA, Vizcaino VM. Comparison of ultrasonographic cervical length and the bishop score in predicting successful labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;86:799–804.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Abdelazim A, Abo Faza ML. Sonographic assessment of the cervical length before induction of labor. Asian Pac J Reprod. 2012;1(4):253–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Groeneveld YJB, Bohnen A, Van Heusdenc AM. Cervical length measured by transvaginal ultrasonography versus bishop score to predict successful labour induction in term pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2(3):187–93.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Adwy AM, Sobh SM, Belal DS, Omran EF, Hassan A, Saad AH, Afifi MM, Nada AM. Diagnostic accuracy of posterior cervical angle and cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):102–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM, Edmonds DK, Rodeck CH. Preinduction cervical assessment by Bishop's score and transvaginal ultrasound. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;40:17–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:538–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gokturk U, Cavkaytar S, Danisman N. Can measurement of cervical length, fetal head position and posterior cervical angle be an alternative method to bishop score in the prediction of successful labor induction? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Eser A, Ozkaya E. Uterocervical angle: an ultrasound screening tool to predict satisfactory response to labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;25:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dagdeviren E, Aslan Çetin B, Aydogan Mathyk B, Koroglu N, Topcu EG, Yuksel MA. Can uterocervical angles successfully predict induction of labor in nulliparous women? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:87–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gokturk U, Cavkaytar S, Danısman N. Can measurement of cervical length, fetal head position and posterior cervical angle be an alternative method to bishop score in the prediction of successful labor induction? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(11):1360–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eggebø TM, Økland I, Heien C, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the bishop score? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(3):325–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eggebo TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Okland I, Romundstad P, et al. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultra- sound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:387–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):199–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KÅ, Eggebø TM. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(6):702–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ali MS, Abdelhafeez MA, Medhat A. The distance from maternal perineum to fetal head distance as a predictive of successful induction of labor. Nat Sci. 2013;11:19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Chan WWY, Chaemsaithong P, Lim WT, Tse AWT, Kwan AHW, Leung TY, Sahota DS, Poon LC. Pre-induction Transperineal ultrasound assessment for the prediction of labor outcome. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019;45(4):256–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Khazardoost S, Ghotbizadeh Vahdani F, Lati-fi S, Borna S, Tahani M, Rezaei MA, et al. Pre- induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery com- pared to bishop score: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:330.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Verhoeven CJ, Rückert ME, Opmeer BC, Pajkrt E, Mol BW. Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict mode of delivery: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(1):9–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peregrine E, O’Brien P, Jauniaux E. Impact on delivery outcome of ultrasono- graphic fetal head position prior to induction of labour. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:618–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tribalat S, Lewin D, Tochon C. Orientation of the fetal head at the time of engagement in induced labor. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 1986;15:937–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Verhoeven CJ, Mulders LG, Oei SG, Mol BW. Does ultrasonographic foetal head position prior to induction of labour predict the outcome of delivery? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;164(2):133–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cooley S, Lissoni D, Geary M, Keane D. Does fetal head position at the term plus 12 scan influence induction, labor and delivery outcome? J Perinat Med. 2004;32(3):258–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Eggebø TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KÅ, Torkildsen EA, Østborg TB, Lees CC. Prediction of delivery mode by ultrasound-assessed fetal position in nulliparous women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(5):606–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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(6):532–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Muscatello A, Di Nicola M, Accurti V, Mastrocola N, Franchi V, Colagrande I, Patacchiola F, Carta G. Sonoelastography as method for preliminary evaluation of uterine cervix to predict success of induction of labor. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014;35(1):57–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sugitani M, Fujita Y, Yumoto Y, Fukushima K, Takeuchi T, Shimokawa M, Kato K. A new method for measurement of placental elasticity: acoustic radiation force impulse imaging. Placenta. 2013;34(11):1009–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hee L, Sandager P, Petersen O, Uldbjerg N. Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix by interposition of a synthetic reference material. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(11):1244–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS. Imaging analysis of cervical elastography for prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(6):937–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fuchs T, Pomorski M, Zimmer M. Quantitative cervical elastography in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(6):712.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Fuchs T, Woytoń R, Pomorski M, Wiatrowski A, Slejman N, Tomiałowicz M, Florjański J, Milnerowicz-Nabzdyk E, Zimmer M. Sonoelastography of the uterine cervix as a new diagnostic tool of cervical assessment in pregnant women—preliminary report. Ginekol Pol. 2013;84(1):12–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Khalil MR, Thorsen P, Uldbjerg N. Cervical ultrasound elastography may hold potential to predict risk of preterm birth. Dan Med J. 2013;60(1):A4570.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R. Quantitative cervical elastography in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(5):612. author reply 612-3

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hernandez-Andrade E, Hassan SS, Ahn H, Korzeniewski SJ, Yeo L, Chaiworapongsa T, Romero R. Evaluation of cervical stiffness during pregnancy using semiquantitative ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(2):152–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Molina FS, Gómez LF, Florido J, Padilla MC, Nicolaides KH. Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(6):685–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11067. Epub 2012 May 22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):52–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hee L, Rasmussen CK, Schlütter JM, Sandager P, Uldbjerg N. Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix prior to induction of labor as a predictor of cervical dilation time. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(7):684–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Londero AP, Schmitz R, Bertozzi S, Driul L, Fruscalzo A. Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting labor induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinat Med. 2016;44(2):167–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Fröhlich C, Meyer-Wittkopf M, Schmitz R. Quantitative elastography of the cervix for predicting labor induction success. Ultraschall Med. 2015;36(1):65–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wozniak S, Czuczwar P, Szkodziak P, Paszkowski T. Usefulness of elastography in predicting the outcome of Foley catheter labour induction. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(3):245–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Pereira S, Frick AP, Poon LC, Zamprakou A, Nicolaides KH. Successful induction of labor: prediction by preinduction cervical length, angle of progression and cervical elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(4):468–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Swiatkowska-Freund M, Pankrac Z, Preis K. Intra- and inter-observer variability of evaluation of uterine cervix elastography images during pregnancy. Ginekol Pol. 2014;85(5):360–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fruscalzo A, Mazza E, Feltovich H, Schmitz R. Cervical elastography during pregnancy: a critical review of current approaches with a focus on controversies and limitations. J Med Ultrason (2001). 2016;43(4):493–504.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Lu J, Cheng YKY, Ho SYS, Sahota DS, Hui LL, Poon LC, Leung TY. The predictive value of cervical shear wave elastography in the outcome of labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(1):59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  69. O'Hara S, Zelesco M, Sun Z. Shear wave Elastography on the uterine cervix: technical development for the Transvaginal approach. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(4):1049–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • Muller M, Aït-Belkacem D, Hessabi M, Gennisson JL, Grangé G, Goffinet F, Lecarpentier E, Cabrol D, Tanter M, Tsatsaris V. Assessment of the cervix in pregnant women using shear wave Elastography: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41(11):2789–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabiani L, Haumonte JB, Loundou A, Caro AS, Brunet J, Cocallemen JF, D’ercole C, Bretelle F. Cervical HI-RTE elastography and pregnancy outcome: a prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;186:80–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Panos Antsaklis

Authors
  1. Panos Antsaklis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Antsaklis, P. (2021). Intrapartum Ultrasound and Bishop Score: A New Obstetric Tool. In: Malvasi, A. (eds) Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_8

  • 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