Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Second Stage of Labor: Comparison Between Traditional and Sonographic Parameters

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management

  • 655 Accesses

Abstract

The second stage of labor commences as the cervix is fully dilated and ends with delivery of the fetus. Prolonged second stage of labor is associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity. Multiple factors were reported to influence the length of the second stage of labor such as parity, neuraxial analgesia, birth weight, occiput position, and fetal head station at complete dilatation. However, the great mystery of obstetrics which women will deliver safely and which will suffer a prolonged, obstructed course of labor remains unsolved.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:693–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, Dittmar A, Gaucherand P, Cucherat M, Redarce T, Rudigoz RC. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:868–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley S, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:264–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbera A, Becker T, MacFarlane H, et al. Assessment of fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound: teaching DVD. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eggebø TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KÅ, Torkildsen EA, Østborg TB, Lees CC. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(5):606–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Youssef A, Maroni E, Ragusa A, De Musso F, Salsi G, Iammarino MT, Paccapelo A, Rizzo N, Pilu G, Ghi T. Fetal head–symphysis distance: a simple and reliable ultrasound index of fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:419–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilboa Y, Kivilevitch Z, Spira M, Kedem A, Katorza E, Moran O, Achiron R. Head progression distance in prolonged second stage of labor: relationship with mode of delivery and fetal head station. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:436–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. ISUOG. Practice Guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:128–39.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dückelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Nonnenmacher A, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD. Measurement of fetal head descent using the “angle of progression” on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:216–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, Puertas A, Nicolaides KH. What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:493–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Slowinski T, Dückelmann AM, Vogt M, Nguyen-Dobinsky TN, Streitparth F, Teichgräber U, Henrich W, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD. Relationship between fetal head station established using an open magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the angle of progression determined by transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:712–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Fotopoulou C, Slowinski T, Dückelmann AM, Teichgräber U, Streitparth F, Henrich W, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD. Angle of progression measurements of fetal head at term: a systematic comparison between open magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:161.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barbera AF, Imani F, Becker T, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. Anatomic relationship between the pubic symphysis and ischial spines and its clinical significance in the assessment of fetal head engagement and station during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:320–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tutschek B, Torkildsen EA, Eggebø TM. Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:425–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Perlman S, Kivilevitch Z, Moran O, Katorza E, Kees S, Achiron R, Gilboa Y. Correlation between clinical fetal head station and sonographic angle of progression during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(21):2905–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grobman WA, Bailit J, Lai Y, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Varner MW, Caritis SN, Prasad M, Tita AT, Saade G, Sorokin Y, Rouse DJ, Blackwell SC, Tolosa JE, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Association of the Duration of active pushing with obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(4):667–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lemos A, Amorim MM, Dornelas de Andrade A, de Souza AI, Cabral Filho JE, Correia JB. Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3:CD009124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Mascio D, Saccone G, Bellussi F, Al-Kouatly HB, Brunelli R, Benedetti Panici P, Liberati M, D’Antonio F, Berghella V. Delayed versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labor in women with neuraxial analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(2):189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalache KD, Dückelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Cichon G, Dudenhausen JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the “angle of progression” predict the mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:326–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:313–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghi T, Maroni E, Youssef A, Morselli-Labate AM, Paccapelo A, Montaguti E, Rizzo N, Pilu G. Sonographic pattern of fetal head descent: relationship with duration of active second stage of labor and occiput position at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44:82–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kasbaoui S, Séverac F, Aïssi G, Gaudineau A, Lecointre L, Akladios C, Favre R, Langer B, Sananès N. Predicting the difficulty of operative vaginal delivery by ultrasound measurement of fetal head station. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):507.e1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cuerva MJ, Bamberg C, Tobias P, Gil MM, De La Calle M, Bartha JL. Use of intrapartum ultrasound in the prediction of complicated operative forceps delivery of fetuses in non-occiput posterior position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:687–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lau WL, Leung WC, Chin R. What is the best transperineal ultrasound parameter for prediction success of vacuum extraction? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bultez T, Quibel T, Bouhanna P, Popowski T, Resche-Rigon M, Rozenberg P. Angle of fetal head progression measured using transperineal ultrasound as a predictive factor of vacuum extraction failure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:86–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Martins I, Silva R, Mendes S, et al. Correlation between the angle of progression and complicated operative vaginal delivery after prolonged second stage of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sainz JA, Borrero C, Aquise A, Serrano R, Gutiérrez L, Fernández-Palacín A. Utility of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to predict cases of failure in vacuum extraction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:1348–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sainz JA, García-Mejido JA, Aquise A, Borrero C, Bonomi MJ, Fernández-Palacín A. A simple model to predict the complicated operative vaginal deliveries using vacuum or forceps. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):193.e1–193.e12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, Youssef A, Torkildsen EA, Lindtjørn E, Østborg TB, Benediktsdottir S, Brooks L, Harmsen L, Romundstad PR, Salvesen KÅ, Lees CC, Eggebø TM. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):69.e1–69.e10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, Youssef A, Torkildsen EA, Lindtjørn E, Østborg TB, Benediktsdottir S, Brooks L, Harmsen L, Salvesen KÅ, Lees CC, Eggebø TM. Descent of the fetal head during active pushing: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study investigating ultrasound examination before an operative vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54(4):524–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gilboa Y, Frenkel TI, Schlesinger Y, Rousseau S, Hamiel D, Achiron R, Perlman S. Visual biofeedback using transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):91–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bellussi F, Alcamisi L, Guizzardi G, Parma D, Pilu G. Traditionally vs sonographically coached pushing in second stage of labor: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):87–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schlesinger Y, Hamiel D, Rousseau S, Perlman S, Gilboa Y, Achiron R, Frenkel TI. Preventing risk for posttraumatic stress following childbirth: visual biofeedback during childbirth increases maternal connectedness to her newborn thereby preventing risk for posttraumatic stress following childbirth. Psychol Trauma. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000558.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

    Roni Levy

  2. The Hebrew University School of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel

    Roni Levy

  3. The Helen Schneider Women’s Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel

    Sharon Perlman

  4. The Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Sharon Perlman

Authors
  1. Roni Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Perlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Santa Maria Hospital, GVM Care and Research, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Malvasi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Levy, R., Perlman, S. (2021). The Second Stage of Labor: Comparison Between Traditional and Sonographic Parameters. In: Malvasi, A. (eds) Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57594-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57595-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation