Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Study on the cephalopelvic relationship with cephalic presentation in nulliparous full-term Chinese pregnant women by MRI with three-dimensional reconstruction

  • Images in Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the relationship between fetal head size and maternal pelvis size using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a 3-D reconstruction technique.

Methods

A total of 301 nulliparous full-term Chinese pregnant women with cephalic presentation were enrolled and received MRI examinations before labor onset. Data were collected and imported into Mimics software to reconstruct the maternal pelvis and fetus.

Results

Of 301 pregnant women, 212 underwent vaginal delivery and 32 received cesarean section. The body mass index (BMI) was significantly different between the vaginal delivery group and the suspected cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) group; the larger the BMI, the higher was the risk of CPD. The transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet and the posterior sagittal diameter of the midpelvis were significantly larger in the vaginal delivery group, compared with the suspected CPD group. Fetal weight > 3.5 kg could be used as a diagnostic indicator for CPD.

Conclusions

BMI is a risk factor for CPD, and fetal weight < 3.5 kg is an important diagnostic indicator for natural delivery in Chinese pregnant women.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. (1966) Cephalopelvic disproportion. Can Med Assoc J 94:1126–1127

  3. Silver RM (2012) Implications of the first cesarean: perinatal and future reproductive health and subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. Semin Perinatol 36:315–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Birge O, Karaca C, Arslan D, Kinali E (2016) Medical management of cesarean scar pregnancy at advanced age: case report and literature review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 43:140–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van der Voet LF, Bij de Vaate AM, Veersema S, Brolmann HA, Huirne JA (2014) Long-term complications of caesarean section. The niche in the scar: a prospective cohort study on niche prevalence and its relation to abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG 121:236–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bateman BT, Berman MF, Riley LE, Leffert LR (2010) The epidemiology of postpartum hemorrhage in a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. Anesth Analg 110:1368–1373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu Y, Wang X, Zou L, Ruan Y, Zhang W (2017) An analysis of variations of indications and maternal-fetal prognosis for caesarean section in a tertiary hospital of Beijing: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e5509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Li HT, Luo S, Trasande L, Hellerstein S, Kang C, Li JX, Zhang Y, Liu JM, Blustein J (2017) Geographic variations and temporal trends in cesarean delivery rates in China, 2008–2014. JAMA 317:69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P, Wagner M (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 21:98–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Luo L, Niu G, Wang Q, Xie HZ, Yao SZ (2012) Vaginal repair of cesarean section scar diverticula. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19:454–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Charoenboon C, Srisupundit K, Tongsong T (2013) Rise in cesarean section rate over a 20-year period in a public sector hospital in northern Thailand. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Brien K, Rode M, Macones G (2002) Postpartum X-ray pelvimetry. Its use in calculating the fetal-pelvic index and predicting fetal-pelvic disproportion. J Reprod Med 47:845–848

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarris I, Ioannou C, Dighe M, Mitidieri A, Oberto M, Qingqing W, Shah J, Sohoni S, Al Zidjali W, Hoch L, Altman DG, Papageorghiou AT, International F, Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st C (2011) Standardization of fetal ultrasound biometry measurements: improving the quality and consistency of measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:681–687

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fasler T, Burkhardt T, Wisser J, Keller T, Kurmanavicius J (2010) Does a combination of foetal biometry and maternal MRI pelvimetry decrease the frequency of secondary caesarean section? Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 214:68–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morgan MA, Thurnau GR, Fishburne JI Jr (1986) The fetal-pelvic index as an indicator of fetal-pelvic disproportion: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 155:608–613

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Keller TM, Rake A, Michel SC, Seifert B, Efe G, Treiber K, Huch R, Marincek B, Kubik-Huch RA (2003) Obstetric MR pelvimetry: reference values and evaluation of inter- and intraobserver error and intraindividual variability. Radiology 227:37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pattinson RC (2000) Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD000161

  18. Sporri S, Hanggi W, Braghetti A, Vock P, Schneider H (1997) Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool to evaluate dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 89:902–908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zaretsky MV, Reichel TF, McIntire DD, Twickler DM (2003) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to ultrasound in the estimation of birth weight at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1017–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zaretsky MV, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Hatab MR, Twickler DM, Leveno KJ (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry and the prediction of labor dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 106:919–926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stark DD, McCarthy SM, Filly RA, Parer JT, Hricak H, Callen PW (1985) Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 144:947–950

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Franz M, von Bismarck A, Delius M, Ertl-Wagner B, Deppe C, Mahner S, Hasbargen U, Hubener C (2017) MR pelvimetry: prognosis for successful vaginal delivery in patients with suspected fetopelvic disproportion or breech presentation at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:351–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fox LK, Huerta-Enochian GS, Hamlin JA, Katz VL (2004) The magnetic resonance imaging-based fetal-pelvic index: a pilot study in the community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:1679–1685 (discussion 1685–1678)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berger R, Sawodny E, Bachmann G, Herrmann S, Kunzel W (1994) The prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging for the management of breech delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 55:97–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoffmann J, Thomassen K, Stumpp P, Grothoff M, Engel C, Kahn T, Stepan H (2016) New MRI criteria for successful vaginal breech delivery in primiparae. PLoS One 11:e0161028

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kacem Y, Cannie MM, Kadji C, Dobrescu O, Lo Zito L, Ziane S, Strizek B, Evrard AS, Gubana F, Gucciardo L, Staelens R, Jani JC (2013) Fetal weight estimation: comparison of two-dimensional US and MR imaging assessments. Radiology 267:902–910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu P (2012) The study of digital three-dimensional reconstruction of normal female pelvis. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou

    Google Scholar 

  28. Liu P, Liao KD, Chen CL, Zhong M, Wang Y, Chang RM (2015) Reconstruction of digital three-dimensional model of full-term fetus based on MRI data. Chin J Med Imaging 23:23–26

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bian X, Zhuang J, Cheng X (1998) Prediction of cephalopelvic disproportion by ultrasonographic cephalopelic. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 33:533–535

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Spörri S, Thoeny HC, Raio L, Lachat R, Vock P, Schneider H (2002) MR imaging pelvimetry: a useful adjunct in the treatment of women at risk for dystocia?. Am J Roentgenol 179 (1):137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Friedman EA, Taylor MB (1969) A modified nomographic aid for x-ray cephalopelvimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 105(7):1110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Korhonen U, Solja R, Laitinen J, Heinonen S, Taipale P (2010) MR pelvimetry measurements, analysis of inter- and intra-observer variation. Eur J Radiol 75:e56–e61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Reitter A, Daviss BA, Bisits A, Schollenberger A, Vogl T, Herrmann E, Louwen F, Zangos S (2014) Does pregnancy and/or shifting positions create more room in a woman’s pelvis? Am J Obstet Gynecol 211(662):e661–e669

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gupta JK, Sood A, Hofmeyr GJ, Vogel JP (2017) Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD002006

  35. Surapanthapisit P, Thitadilok W (2006) Risk factors of caesarean section due to cephalopelvic disproportion. J Med Assoc Thai 89(Suppl 4):S105–S111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Joyce DN, Giwa-Osagie F, Stevenson GW (1975) Role of pelvimetry in active management of labour. Br Med J 4:505–507

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL (2014) Williams obstetrics, 24th edn. McGrawHill Com Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Glenn DP, Jessica D, Amanda YB (2013) Oxorn-Foote human labor and birth, 6th edn. McGrawHill Com Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (2012) Health care guideline: routine prenatal care, 15th edn. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  40. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (1998) Guideline RCOG: pelvimetry—clinical indications. RCOG Press, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the pregnant women who participated in this study and the technologists from the Imaging Department of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, who assisted in this work.

Funding

This study was supported by a project of the Natural Science Foundation of China, “The Establishment of a Digital Three-Dimensional Platform of the Bony Birth Canal and its Predictive Significance in Cephalic Delivery” (No. 81370736), and a high-level matching project of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University (No. 2013020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China

    Yi-Ge Li, Chun-Lin Chen, Ke-Dan Liao, Yan-Hong Yu, Yan Wang & Ping Liu

  2. Imaging Department of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China

    Yi-Kai Xu & Wenjun Qiao

Authors
  1. Yi-Ge Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chun-Lin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ke-Dan Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yan-Hong Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yi-Kai Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wenjun Qiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ping Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PL, CLC, YGL, and YHY designed the study. YGL, YKX, YW, and WJQ collected and analyzed the data. KDL reconstructed and measured the data. YGL and PL drafted and wrote the manuscript. PL, YGL, CLC, KDL, YHY, YKX, YW, and WJQ revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content. All authors gave intellectual input to the study and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ping Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University (approval number: 032; 2013), with clinical research registration number ChiCTR-DDD-16009075. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethics standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethics standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, YG., Chen, CL., Liao, KD. et al. Study on the cephalopelvic relationship with cephalic presentation in nulliparous full-term Chinese pregnant women by MRI with three-dimensional reconstruction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 298, 433–441 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4814-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4814-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation