Skip to main content

Risk factors and perinatal outcome of pregnancies complicated with cephalopelvic disproportion: a population-based study

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 285, pages 931–936 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To characterize risk factors and perinatal outcome following cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD).

Methods

A retrospective population-based study comparing all singleton deliveries of women with and without CPD, between 1988 and 2010, was conducted. A multiple logistic regression model was used to control for confounders.

Results

Out of 242,520 patients, 0.3% (n = 673) were diagnosed with CPD. Using a multivariable analysis, the following obstetric risk factors were significantly associated with CPD: fetal macrosomia (birth weight above 4 kg, OR = 3.3, 95% CI 2.7–4.1, P < 0.001), infertility treatment (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.8–3.8, P < 0.001), previous caesarean delivery (OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.9–2.7, P < 0.001), maternal obesity (OR = 2.1, 95% 1.3–3.4, P < 0.001), and polyhydramnios (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.3, P < 0.001). Deliveries complicated by CPD resulted in Caesarean delivery in 99%, and were more likely to have laceration of the cervix (1.2 vs. 0.3%, P < 0.001), rupture of uterus (0.4 vs. 0.1%, P < 0.001), intrapartum mortality (0.6 vs. 0.1% in control, P < 0.001), and low 1-min Apgar scores (<7; 27.2 vs. 6.5%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In our population, independent risk factors for CPD include fetal macrosomia, infertility treatment, previous caesarean delivery, maternal obesity and polyhydramnion. These pregnancies had higher rates of adverse perinatal outcomes and accordingly high index of suspicion should be pursued when commencing trial of labor of such pregnancies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  1. Maharaj D (2010) Assessing cephalopelvic disproportion: back to the basics. Obstet Gynecol Surv 65(6):387–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Feinstein U, Sheiner E, Levy A, Hallak M, Mazor M (2002) Risk factors for arrest of descent during the second stage of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 77(1):7–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheiner E, Levy A, Feinstein U, Hallak M, Mazor M (2002) Risk factors and outcome of failure to progress during the first stage of labor: a population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81(3):222–226

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sheiner E, Levy A, Feinstein U, Hershkovitz R, Hallak M, Mazor M (2002) Obstetric risk factors for failure to progress in the first versus the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 11(6):409–413

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Khunpradit S, Patumanond J, Tawichasri C (2005) Risk indicators for cesarean section due to cephalopelvic disproportion in Lamphun hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 88(Suppl 2):S63–S68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Hana HP, Levy A, Rozen A, Greemberg L, Shapira Y, Sheiner E (2008) The effect of epidural analgesia on labor progress and outcome in nulliparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 21(8):517–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burstein E, Levy A, Mazor M, Wiznitzer A, Sheiner E (2008) Pregnancy outcome among obese women: a prospective study. Am J Perinatol 25(9):561–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Veciana M, Major CA, Morgan MA, Asrat T, Toohey JS, Lien JM et al (1995) Postprandial versus preprandial blood glucose monitoring in women with gestational diabetes mellitus requiring insulin therapy. N Engl J Med 333(19):1237–1241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Isaacs JD, Magann EF, Martin RW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC (1994) Obstetric challenges of massive obesity complicating pregnancy. J Perinatol 14(1):10–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Levy A, Wiznitzer A, Holcberg G, Mazor M, Sheiner E (2010) Family history of diabetes mellitus as an independent risk factor for macrosomia and cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23(2):148–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tomic V, Bosnjak K, Petrov B, Dikic M, Knezevic D (2007) Macrosomic births at Mostar Clinical Hospital: a 2-year review. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 7(3):271–274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Voigt M, Straube S, Zygmunt M, Krafczyk B, Schneider KT, Briese V (2008) Obesity and pregnancy—a risk profile. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 212(6):201–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Liselele HB, Boulvain M, Tshibangu KC, Meuris S (2000) Maternal height and external pelvimetry to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous African women: a cohort study. BJOG 107(8):947–952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liselele HB, Tshibangu CK, Meuris S (2000) Association between external pelvimetry and vertex delivery complications in African women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79(8):673–678

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Barron LR, Hill RO, Linkletter AM (1964) X-Ray pelvimetry. Can Med Assoc J 91:1209–1212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell JA (1976) X-ray pelvimetry: useful procedure or medical nonsense. J Natl Med Assoc 68(6):514–520

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Poma PA (1982) Value of X-ray pelvimetry in primiparas. II: Influence on management of labor. J Natl Med Assoc 74(3):267–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49 (2003) Dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 102(6):1445–1454

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stevens-Simon C, McAnarney ER (1988) Adolescent maternal weight gain and low birth weight: a multifactorial model. Am J Clin Nutr 47(6):948–953

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Konje JC, Ladipo OA (2000) Nutrition and obstructed labor. Am J Clin Nutr 72(1 Suppl):291S–297S

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, Mazor M (2005) Short stature—an independent risk factor for Cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 120(2):175–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dujardin B, VanCutsem R, Lambrechts T (1996) The value of maternal height as a risk factor of dystocia: a meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health 1(4):510–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Awonuga AO, Merhi Z, Awonuga MT, Samuels TA, Waller J, Pring D (2007) Anthropometric measurements in the diagnosis of pelvic size: an analysis of maternal height and shoe size and computed tomography pelvimetric data. Arch Gynecol Obstet 276(5):523–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Raichel L, Sheiner E (2005) Maternal obesity as a risk factor for complications in pregnancy, labor and pregnancy outcomes. Harefuah 144(2):107–111, 150

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sheiner E, Levy A, Menes TS, Silverberg D, Katz M, Mazor M (2004) Maternal obesity as an independent risk factor for caesarean delivery. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 18(3):196–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Abitbol MM, Taylor-Randall UB, Barton PT, Thompson E (1997) Effect of modern obstetrics on mothers from Third-World countries. J Matern Fetal Med 6(5):276–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mabille JP, Thery Y (1976) Multiple exostosis disease revealed by the occurence of dystocia (author’s transl). Ann Radiol (Paris) 19(4):463–467

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wicklund CL, Pauli RM, Johnston D, Hecht JT (1995) Natural history study of hereditary multiple exostoses. Am J Med Genet 55(1):43–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Stieber JR, Dormans JP (2005) Manifestations of hereditary multiple exostoses. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13(2):110–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jaluvka V, Bystricky Z (1966) What effects do pelvic fractures have on the course of pregnancy, menstruation and sexual life. Z Geburtshilfe Gynakol 166(1):45–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Magnin P, Schnepp H, Dargent D, Cherasse A (1969) Obstetric consequences of pelvic fractures. Gynecol Obstet (Paris) 68(3):237–258

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Speer DP, Peltier LF (1972) Pelvic fractures and pregnancy. J Trauma 12(6):474–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Beck A, Schaller A (1975) Pelvic fractures from the obstetric viewpoint. Hefte Unfallheilkd (124):220–223

  34. Madsen LV, Jensen J, Christensen ST (1983) Parturition and pelvic fracture. Follow-up of 34 obstetric patients with a history of pelvic fracture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 62(6):617–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Copeland CE, Bosse MJ, McCarthy ML, MacKenzie EJ, Guzinski GM, Hash CS et al (1997) Effect of trauma and pelvic fracture on female genitourinary, sexual, and reproductive function. J Orthop Trauma 11(2):73–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Pape HC, Pohlemann T, Gansslen A, Simon R, Koch C, Tscherne H (2000) Pelvic fractures in pregnant multiple trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma 14(4):238–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Leggon RE, Wood GC, Indeck MC (2002) Pelvic fractures in pregnancy: factors influencing maternal and fetal outcomes. J Trauma 53(4):796–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Loegters T, Briem D, Gatzka C, Linhart W, Begemann PG, Rueger JM et al (2005) Treatment of unstable fractures of the pelvic ring in pregnancy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(3):204–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Almog G, Liebergall M, Tsafrir A, Barzilay Y, Mosheiff R (2007) Management of pelvic fractures during pregnancy. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36(11):E153–E159

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lo BM, Downs EJ, Dooley JC (2009) Open-book pelvic fracture in late pregnancy. Pediatr Emerg Care 25(9):586–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. (1966) Cephalopelvic disproportion. Can Med Assoc J 94(21):1126–1127

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel

    Oren Tsvieli

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, P.O Box 151, Be’er-Sheva, Israel

    Eyal Sheiner

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Health Services Evaluation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel

    Ruslan Sergienko

Authors
  1. Oren Tsvieli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruslan Sergienko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eyal Sheiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eyal Sheiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsvieli, O., Sergienko, R. & Sheiner, E. Risk factors and perinatal outcome of pregnancies complicated with cephalopelvic disproportion: a population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 931–936 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2086-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2086-4

Keywords

  • Cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD)
  • Pregnancy outcome
  • Caesarean delivery
  • Pelvic fractures