Revising the primigravid partogram: does it make any difference?
- First Online:
- 179 Downloads
To investigate the distribution of the rate of cervical dilatation of primigravid labour and its deviation from the standard partogram.
Retrospective observational study.
South African district hospital serving an indigent rural population.
Expectant management of labour of healthy nulliparous women in active labour, at term, with a singleton pregnancy and cephalic presentation.
Audit of 1,595 partograms of spontaneous primigravid labour. The standard partogram’s alert line was replaced by a customised alert line based on the lowest 10th centile of the rate of cervical dilatation of the study population and an alert line representing the 10% slowest labours. The action line was placed parallel and 4 h to the right of the alert lines.
Main outcome measure
The distribution of labours left to and on the respective alert lines, and right to the action lines.
The lowest 90th centile of the customised alert line yielded a rate of cervical dilatation of 0.860 cm/h. Three quarters of labours evolved left to the revised alert line as opposed to 56.1% left of the standard alert line [Odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.56]. The mean rate of cervical dilatation of the 10% slowest labours was 0.535 ± 0.076 cm/h (P < 0.0001), and 95.7% of labours evolved left to the corresponding alert line (OR 8.40, 95% CI 6.44–11.0).
The alert line representing the mean of the 10% slowest labours leads to an unrealistic distribution of labour on the partogram. A revised alert line based on the lowest 10th centile of the local population is more representative and should perhaps be used in the management of labour.
KeywordsPartogram Primigravidae Customisation
- 1.Friedman EA (1978) Labor: clinical evaluation and management, 2nd edn. Appleton-Century-Crofts, NorwalkGoogle Scholar
- 2.Philpott RH, Castle WM (1972) Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae I. The alert line for detecting abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Cmwth 79:592–598Google Scholar
- 3.World Health Organization Safe Motherhood Programme (1994) World Health Organization partograph in the management of labour. Lancet 343:1399–1404Google Scholar
- 4.Crowther C, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Brown I (1991) Monitoring the progress of labour. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 833–843Google Scholar
- 7.Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Neilson J, Crowther C (2000) Monitoring the progress of labour. In: A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–288Google Scholar
- 8.O’Driscoll K, Meagher D, Robson M (2003) Active management of labour, 4th edn. Mosby, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- 12.Soutter P, Spencer J (2003) Landmark Publications. Centenary Supplement. 1972–1981 Commentaries. Br J Obstet Gynaecol (Suppl 21):110Google Scholar
- 13.Pattinson RC, Howarth GR, Mdluli W et al (2003) Aggressive or expectant management of labour: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110:457–461Google Scholar
- 19.Owen P, Farrell T, Hardwick JC et al (2002) Relationship between customised birthweight centiles and neonatal anthropometric features of growth restriction. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 109:658–662Google Scholar
- 20.Maternal Health Safe Motherhood Programme (1993) Preventing prolonged labour: a practical guide. In: The Partograph. Part I. Principles and Strategy. WHO/FH/MSM. 93.8, WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar