Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length in predicting mode of delivery after oxytocin induction

  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was conducted to explore the value of transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurement, in addition to gestational age, maternal age, parity, Bishop score, and weight of the newborn, in predicting the mode of delivery in pregnancies in which labor is induced with oxytocin at or beyond the 40th gestational week. A total of 73 pregnancies at 40 to 42 weeks of gestation were included. After labor was induced, 29 women delivered vaginally and 44 underwent cesarean section. These groups were compared with respect to possible predictive parameters of delivery outcomes. Studentt test, Pearson’s correlation analysis, and logistic regression analysis were used for statistical evaluation. Mean preinduction cervical length was 26.8±9.9 mm in the vaginal delivery group and 34.2±8.1 mm in the cesarean section group (P < .05). Mean maternal age, parity, and Bishop score were significantly higher and mean weight of the newborn was significantly lower in the vaginal delivery group. Cervical length measurements showed a significant negative correlation with Bishop scores (r=−.584;P < .05). Logistic regression analysis revealed that Bishop score (likelihood ratio=.472; 95% confidence interval=.338–.658;P < .05) and weight of the newborn (likelihood ratio=1.002; 95% confidence interval=1 .00007–1.003;P < .05) were significant independent predictors of the route of delivery. According to the results of this study, maternal age, parity, Bishop score, cervical length, and weight of the newborn all might affect the mode of delivery after labor induction. Bishop score, although a subjective measure, must be considered an important component of preinduction evaluation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jonas O, Chan A, MacHarper T. Cesarean section in South Australia.Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;29:99–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van Ham MA, van Dongen PW, Mulder J. Maternal consequences of cesarean section: a retrospective study of intra-operative and postoperative maternal complications of cesarean section during a 10-year period.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997;74:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Induction of labor. In: Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Gilstrap LC III, Wenstrom KD, eds.Williams Obstetrics. 22nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies; 2005:535–545.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1030–1032.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;8:623–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzales N, Leymarie F, Quereux C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:254–257.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang SH, Roh CR, Kim JH. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor.J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:375–382.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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;21:34–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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;107:227–233.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arulkumaran S, Gibb DM, Tambyraja RL, Heng SH, Ratnam SS. Failed induction of labor.Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;25:190–193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD00170.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:538–549.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;17:315–322.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of the need for cesarean section.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:45–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chanrachakul B, Herabutya Y. Postterm with favorable cervix: is induction necessary?Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;106:154–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crane JMG. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:573–584.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Salazar F, et al. Variables that predict the success of labor induction.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84:1093–1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Crane JM, Delaney T, Butt KD, Bennett KA, Hutchens D, Young DC. Predictors of successful labor induction with oral or vaginal misoprostol.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004;15:319–323.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rane SM, Pandis GK, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:40–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score.Eur J Ultrasound. 1998;7:183–187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Szczesny W, Kjøllesdal M, Karlsson B, Nielsen S. Bishop score and the outcome of labor induction with misoprostol.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85:579–582.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women.Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:600–607.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:690–697.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazanakis M, Marsh MS, Brockbank E, Economides DL. Assessment of the cervix in the third trimester of pregnancy using transvaginal ultrasound scanning.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;105:31–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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;112:192–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reis FM, Geryasi MT, Florio P, et al. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1361–1367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chandra S, Crane JMG, Hutchens D, Young DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction.Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:2–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Owen J, Winkler CL, Haris BA Jr, Hauth JC, Smith MC. A randomized, double-blind trial of prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening and meta-analysis.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165: 991–996.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Medicine, Sivas, Turkey

    Ali Yanik MD (Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology)

  2. Clinical Research Fellow at King’s College Hospital, Harris Birthright Research Centre for Foetal Medicine, London, UK

    Çagri Gülümser (Resident of Obstetrics and Gynecology)

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey

    Miraç Tosun MD (Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology)

Authors
  1. Ali Yanik MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Çagri Gülümser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miraç Tosun MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Yanik MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yanik, A., Gülümser, Ç. & Tosun, M. Ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length in predicting mode of delivery after oxytocin induction. Adv Therapy 24, 748–756 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02849968

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02849968

Keywords

Search

Navigation