Archives of gynecology

, Volume 240, Issue 4, pp 241–246 | Cite as

Vaginosonographical determination of the true conjugate and the transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet

  • J. Deutinger
  • G. Bernaschek


In suspected cases of cephalopelvic disproportion pelvic measurement and the estimation of the fetal weight can be essential for the management of labor. We measured the true conjugata and the widest transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet with a new vaginal scanner. The biparietal diameter (BPD) was measured with a real-time sector scanner. The results of vaginosonographical measurement were compared and showed good correlation with both conventional radiological measurement and measurements obtained by a compound scanner. Vaginosonographical measurement which causes no pain, is quick and also allows measurement of the transverse diameter of the pelvis, might become a routine method in all suspected cases of cephalopelvic disproportion.

Key words

Vaginal sonography Cephalopelvic disproportion Pelvic measurement True conjugate Transverse diameter 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernaschek G, Deutinger J, Bartl W, Janisch H (1986) Endosonographic staging of carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Arch Gynecol 239:21–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernaschek G, Deutinger J, Janisch H (1985) Endosonography for staging of carcinoma of the cervix uteri. In: Gill RW, Dadd MJ (eds) WFUMB '85, Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the World Federation for Ultrasound. Pergamon Press, p 316Google Scholar
  3. Bernaschek G, Janisch H (1983) Eine Methode zur Objektivierung des Parametrienbefundes beim Zervixkarzinom. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 43:498–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Deutinger J, Bernaschek G (1986) Die vaginosonografische Pelvimetrie als neue Methode zur sonografischen Bestimmung der inneren Beckenmasse. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 46:345–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. College of American Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ed) (1979) ACOG Bull 23(10, 11):2Google Scholar
  6. Federle MP, Cohen HA, Rosenwein MF, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Cann CE (1982) Pelvimetry by digital radiography: a low dose examination. Radiology 143:733–736PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gimovsky ML, Willard K, Neglio M (1985) X-ray pelvimetry in a breech protocol: A comparison of digital radiography and conventional methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 153:887–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kratochwil A (1968) Ultraschalldiagnostik in Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. Kratochwil A (1969) Ein neues vaginales Ultraschall-Schnittbildverfahren. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 29:379–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kratochwil A, Zeibekis N (1972) Ultrasonic pelvimetry. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 51:357–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. MacMahon B (1962) Prenatal X-ray exposure and childhood cancer. JNCI 28:1173–1176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Schlensker KH (1979) Ultraschallmessungen der Conjugata vera obstetrica. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 39:333–337PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Deutinger
    • 1
  • G. Bernaschek
    • 1
  1. 1.2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Chairman: Prof. Dr. H. Janisch)University of ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations