Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasound in Labour and Delivery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology for Developing Countries

  • 1229 Accesses

Abstract

Abnormal, difficult and prolonged labour is associated with an increased maternal and neonatal risk of complications. This is especially apparent in developing countries with limited healthcare resources where the risk of losing either mother or child or, worse still, both is particularly high. Although the safety and utility of diagnostic ultrasound appear no longer to be in much debate, benefits in routine obstetric care continue to provoke discussion. This chapter reviews the indications and contemporary practice of labour and delivery ultrasound with particular reference to developing countries in this regard. It concludes by further exploring the clinical utility and examining some of the limitations, followed by a review of its possible future applications.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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. Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, et al. Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(5):599–608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Groen RS, Loew JJ, Sadasivam V, Kushner AL. Review: indications for ultrasound use in low- and middle-income countries. Tropical Med Int Health. 2011;16(12):1525–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wanyonyi SZ, Mariara CM, Vinayak S, et al. Opportunities and challenges in realising universal access to obstetric ultrasound in sub-Saharan Africa. Ultrasound Int Open. 2017;3(02):E52–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Harrison K. The struggle to reduce high maternal mortality in Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2009;13(3):9–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Badawi N, Kurinczuk JJ, Keogh JM, Alessandri LM, O’Sullivan F, Burton PR, Pemberton PJ, Stanley FJ. Intrapartum risk factors for newborn encephalopathy: the Western Australian case-control study. BMJ. 1998;317:1554–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Stephansson O, Sandström A, Petersson G, Wikström AK, Cnattingius S. Prolonged second stage of labour, maternal infectious disease, urinary retention and other complications in the early postpartum period. BJOG. 2016;123(4):608–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coombes R. Supporting surgery for obstetric fistula. BMJ. 2004;329(7475):1125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wall LL. Obstetric vesicovaginal fistula as an international public-health problem. Lancet. 2006;368(9542):1201–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, Dittmar A, Gaucherand P, Cucherat M, Redarce T, Rudigoz RC. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):868–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, Simone T, André D, René-Charles R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123(2):193–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Akmal S, Tsoi E, Kametas N, Howard R, Nicolaides KH. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002;12(3):172–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Hargreaves C, Nicolaides KH. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(5):437–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI. Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(26):1905–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eichelberger KY. A prolonged second stage should prompt increased vigilance for postpartum maternal complications. BJOG. 2016;123(4):617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thompson MO, Otigbah C, Kelkar A, Coker A, Pankhania A, Kapoor S. The management of placenta accreta at Queen’s Hospital, Romford, UK. In: A comprehensive textbook of postpartum haemorrhage. 2nd ed. London: Sapiens Publishing Limited; 2012. p. 247–58.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kiserud T. Global reproductive health: is diagnostic ultrasound appropriate technology? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40:123–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sayasneh A, Preisler J, Smith A, Saso S, Naji O, Abdallah Y, Stalder C, Daemen A, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Do pocket-sized ultrasound machines have the potential to be used as a tool to triage patients in obstetrics and gynaecology? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40:145–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramphul M, Kennelly M, Murphy DJ. Establishing the accuracy and acceptability of abdominal ultrasound to define the fetal head position in the second stage of labour: a validation study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;164(1):35–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Oboro V, Oboro O, Awopetu O. P16.09: psychological acceptability of transvaginal scan among Nigerians attending for early pregnancy ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(S1):174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Papageorghiou AT, Christina KH, Nicolaides KH. The role of uterine artery Doppler in predicting adverse pregnancy outcome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;18(3):383–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gentili P, Trasimeni A, Giorlandino C. Fetal ossification centres as predictors of gestational age in normal and abnormal pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med. 1984;3(5):193–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chinn DH, Bolding DB, Callen PW, Gross BH, Filly RA. Ultrasonographic identification of fetal lower extremity epiphyseal ossification centres. Radiology. 1983;147(3):815–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldstein I, Lockwood C, Belanger K, Hobbins J. Ultrasonographic assessment of gestational age with the distal femoral and proximal tibial ossification centres in the third trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158(1):127–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Birang S, Ameri AA, Najmi Z. Distal femoral epiphyses ossification centre diameter and third trimester gestational age in Iranian population. Ginekol Pol. 2013;84(12):1025–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gottlieb AG, Galan HL. Nontraditional sonographic pearls in estimating gestational age. Semin Perinatol. 2008;32(3):154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Adeyekun AA, Orji MO. Predictive accuracy of trans-cerebellar diameter in comparison with other fetal biometric parameters for gestational age estimation among pregnant Nigerian women. East Afr Med J. 2014;91(4):138–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eze CU, Onwuzu QE, Nwadike IU. Sonographic reference values for fetal transverse cerebellar diameter in the second and third trimesters in a Nigerian population. J Diagn Med Sonography. 2017;33(3):174–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee W, Barton S, Comstock CH, et al. Transverse cerebellar diameter: a useful predictor of gestational age for foetuses with asymmetric growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:1044–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mayden KL, Tortora M, Berkowitz RL, et al. Orbital diameters: a new parameter for prenatal diagnosis and dating. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:289–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Konje JC, Abrams KR, Bell SC, et al. Determination of gestational age after the 24th week of gestation from fetal kidney length measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:592–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jeanty P, Rodesch F, Delbeke D, et al. Estimation of gestational age from measurements of fetal long bones. J Ultrasound Med. 1984;3:75–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Green Top Guideline No 27. Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management. London: RCOG; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wortman AC, Twickler DM, McIntire DD, Dashe JS. Bleeding complications in pregnancies with low-lying placenta. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;4:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kollmann M, Gaulhofer J, Lang U, Klaritsch P. Placenta praevia: incidence, risk factors and outcome. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;4:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Celik E, To M, Gajewska K, Smith GC, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length and obstetric history predict spontaneous preterm birth: development and validation of a model to provide individualised risk assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(5):549–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Newman RB, Goldenberg RL, Iams JD, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad AH, Thom E, Miodovnik M, Caritis SN, Dombrowski M, Thurnau GR. Preterm prediction study: comparison of the cervical score and Bishop score for prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;112(3):508.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, Thom E, McNellis D, Copper RL, Johnson F, Roberts JM. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Heath VC, Southall TR, Souka AP, Elisseou A, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;12(5):312–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70730/1/WHO_RHR_11.10_eng.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  40. Orhue AAE. Induction of labour. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;14(1):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ade-Ojo IP, Akintayo AA. Induction of labour in the developing countries – an overview. J Med Med Sci. 2013;4(7):258–62.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24(2):266–8. Bishop Score.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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(6):623–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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(2, Part 1):227–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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(5):538–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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;32:199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;49(3):573–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zhu BP, Grigorescu V, Le T, et al. Labor dystocia and its association with interpregnancy interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Simm A, Woods A. Fetal malpresentation. Curr Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;14:231–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Friedman EA. Cervimetry: an objective method for the study of cervical dilatation in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1956;71(6):1189–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labor in primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972;79:599–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:824–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Neal JL, Lowe NK, Ahijevych KL, Patrick TE, Cabbage LA, Corwin EJ. “Active labor” duration and dilation rates among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset: a systematic review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(4):308–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Perils of the new labor management guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):420–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Oladapo OT, Adetoro OO, Ekele BA, Chama C, Etuk SJ, Aboyeji AP, Onah HE, Abasiattai AM, Adamu AN, Adegbola O, Adeniran AS. When getting there is not enough: a nationwide cross-sectional study of 998 maternal deaths and 1451 near-misses in public tertiary hospitals in a low-income country. BJOG. 2016;123(6):928–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Silas O. Basic indices for labour and delivery management in Nigeria. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;30:1.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(23):1709–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Benedetti TJ. Birth injury and method of delivery. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(23):1758–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hassan WA, Tutschek B. Intrapartum sonography: an opportunity for objective assessment of labour. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2013;24(01):2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hassan WA, Eggebø TM, Ferguson M, Lees C. Simple two-dimensional ultrasound technique to assess intrapartum cervical dilatation: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):413–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Dietz HP, Bennett MJ. Can we predict the course of labour? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;42:S16.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Dietz HP, Lanzarone V. Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:165–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Dietz HP, Lanzarone V, Simpson JM. Predicting operative delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(4):409–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 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. 2011;118:62–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kalache KD, Duckelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Cichon G, Dudenhausen JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting foetuses: how well does the “angle of progression” predict the mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:326–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Dückelmann 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cho GJ, Hong HR, Seol HJ, Koo BH, Hong SC, Oh MJ, Kim HJ. Use of the angle of progression on ultrasonography to predict spontaneous onset of labor within 7 days. J Perinat Med. 2015;43(2):185–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Gillor M, Vaisbuch E, Zaks S, Barak O, Hagay Z, Levy R. Transperineal sonographic assessment of the angle of progression as a predictor of a successful vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(2):240–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Iliescu D, Antsaklis P, Paulescu D, Comanescu A, Tudorache S, Antsaklis A, Ceausu I, Novac L, Cernea N, Kurjak A. Applications of ultrasound in prelabor and labor. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;6(3):257–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Salomon N, Siedentopf J, Grieser C, Henrich W. 3D reconstruction of the female pelvis to estimate the distance between the infrapubic line and the plane of ischial spines. J Perinat Med. 2009;37(s1):296.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Simon EG, Arthuis CJ, Perrotin F. Ultrasound in labor monitoring: how to define the plane of ischial spines? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(6):722–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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;33:313–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Fotopoulou C, Slowinski T, Dückelmann AM, Teichgräber 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Armbrust R, Henrich W, Hinkson L, Grieser C, Siedentopf JP. Correlation of intrapartum translabial ultrasound parameters with computed tomographic 3D reconstruction of the female pelvis. J Perinat Med. 2016;44(5):567–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Arthuis CJ, Perrotin F, Patat F, Brunereau L, Simon EG. Computed tomographic study of anatomical relationship between pubic symphysis and ischial spines to improve interpretation of intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016;48(6):779–85.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Økland I, Romundstad P, Salvesen KÅ. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(4):387–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Caldwell WE, Moloy HC. Sexual variations in the pelvis. Science. 1932;76:37–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Adadevoh SW, Hobbs C, Elkins TE. The relation of the true conjugate to maternal height and obstetric performance in Ghanaians. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1989;28(3):243–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Liselele HB, Boulvain M, Tshibangu KC, Meuris S. Maternal height and external pelvimetry to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous African women: a cohort study. BJOG. 2000;107(8):947–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pattinson RC, Cuthbert A, Vannevel V. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term for deciding on mode of delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;(3):1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Rozenberg P. Is there a role for X-ray pelvimetry in the twenty-first century? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2007;35(1):6–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Sigmann MH, Delabrousse E, Riethmuller D, Runge M, Peyron C, Aubry S. An evaluation of the EOS X-ray imaging system in pelvimetry. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(9):833–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Lenhard MS, Johnson TR, Weckbach S, Nikolaou K, Friese K, Hasbargen U. Pelvimetry revisited: analyzing cephalopelvic disproportion. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(3):e107–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Spörri S, Hänggi W, Braghetti A, Vock P, Scheider H. Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool to evaluate dystocia. Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;89(6):902–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 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? Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(1):137–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Daghighi MH, Poureisa M, Ranjkesh M. Association between obstetric conjugate diameter measured by transabdominal ultrasonography during pregnancy and the type of delivery. Iran J Radiol. 2013;10(3):185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Gilboa Y, Kivilevitch Z, Spira M, Kedem A, Katorza E, Moran O, Achiron R. Pubic arch angle in prolonged second stage of labor: clinical significance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):442–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Ghi T, Youssef A, Maroni E, Arcangeli T, De Musso F, Bellussi F, Nanni M, Giorgetta F, Morselli-Labate AM, Iammarino MT, Paccapelo A. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Ghi T, Maroni E, Youssef A, Morselli-Labate AM, Paccapelo A, Montaguti E, Rizzo N, Pilu G. Sonographic pattern of fetal head descent: relationship with duration of active second stage of labor and occiput position at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):82–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Ghi T, Bellussi F, Azzarone C, Krsmanovic J, Franchi L, Youssef A, Lenzi J, Fantini MP, Frusca T, Pilu G. The “occiput–spine angle”: a new sonographic index of fetal head deflexion during the first stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(1):84–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Ghi T, Maroni E, Youssef A, Cariello L, Salsi G, Arcangeli T, Frasca C, Rizzo N, Pilu G. Intrapartum three-dimensional ultrasonographic imaging of face presentations: report of two cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(1):117–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Ghi T, Youssef A, Pilu G, Malvasi A, Ragusa A. Intrapartum sonographic imaging of fetal head asynclitism. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(2):238–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Ghi T, Eggebø T, Lees C, Kalache K, Rozenberg P, Youssef A, Salomon LJ, Tutschek B. ISUOG practice guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):128–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fetal Medicine, Queens University Hospital, Romford, UK

    Morounfolu Olaleye Thompson

  2. Institute of Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Morounfolu Olaleye Thompson

Authors
  1. Morounfolu Olaleye Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morounfolu Olaleye Thompson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Excellence in Reproductive Health Innovation, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria

    Friday Okonofua

  2. College of Health Sciences, Chicago State University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Joseph A. Balogun

  3. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Kunle Odunsi

  4. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Weil Cornell Medicine, Doha, Qatar

    Victor N. Chilaka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thompson, M.O. (2021). Ultrasound in Labour and Delivery. In: Okonofua, F., Balogun, J.A., Odunsi, K., Chilaka, V.N. (eds) Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynecology for Developing Countries . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75385-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75385-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75384-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75385-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation