Fetal Progression in Birth Canal: State of the Art

Chapter

Abstract

Spontaneous vaginal delivery is associated with the lowest mortality and morbidity for both mother and child compared to operative delivery. Therefore, it is the preferred outcome for most pregnancies [1–5]. Most women wish to have a spontaneous delivery without obstetric intervention [6]. Obstetricians and midwifes should support pregnant woman in achieving this goal. However, despite intensive effort, some women fail to progress in the second stage of labor, and thus, they require an operative delivery.

Keywords

Cesarean Section Rate Fetal Head Digital Examination Instrumental Delivery Ischial Spine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Fasubaa OB, Ezechi OC, Orji EO et al (2002) Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labour: a randomised comparative study of two methods. J Obstet Gynaecol 22:375–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R (2001) Early maternal and neonatal morbidity ­associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 358:1203–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bashore RA, Phillips WH Jr, Brinkman CR 3rd (1990) A comparison of the morbidity of midforceps and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 162:1428–1434; discussion 34–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Patel R, Verity L, Swingler R (2003) Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. BJOG 110:610–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhide A, Guven M, Prefumo F, Vankalayapati P, Thilaganathan B (2007) Maternal and neonatal outcome after failed ventouse delivery: comparison of forceps versus cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 20:541–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolip P (2008) Attitudes to cesarean delivery: the view of cesarean section mothers. Gesundheitswesen 70:e22–e28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2000) Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 17, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gardberg M, Laakkonen E, Salevaara M (1998) Intrapar­tum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 91:746–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sizer AR, Nirmal DM (2000) Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 96:749–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phillips RD, Freeman M (1974) The management of the persistent occiput posterior position. A review of 552 consecutive cases. Obstet Gynecol 43:171–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Howard R, Nicolaides KH (2004) Ultrasonographic occiput position in early labour in the prediction of caesarean section. BJOG 111:532–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pearl ML, Roberts JM, Laros RK, Hurd WW (1993) Vaginal delivery from the persistent occiput posterior position. Influence on maternal and neonatal morbidity. J Reprod Med 38:955–961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olah KS (2005) Reversal of the decision for caesarean section in the second stage of labour on the basis of consultant vaginal assessment. J Obstet Gynaecol 25:115–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM (1999) Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 341:1709–1714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin JA, Kung HC, Mathews TJ et al (2008) Annual summary of vital statistics: 2006. Pediatrics 121:788–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Mathews TJ, Osterman MJ (2010) Births: final data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 59(1):3–71Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laws P, Li Z, Sullivan EA (2010) Australia’s mothers and babies 2008. Perinatal statistics series no. 24. Cat. no. PER 50. Canberra: AIHW. Australian Institute of Health and WelfareGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ (2009) Births: preliminary data for 2007. National Vital Statistics Reports 2009Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    (RCOG) RCOOaG (2004) National sentinel caesarean section audit published. RCOG PressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blackwell SC, Refuerzo J, Chadha R, Carreno CA (2009) Overestimation of fetal weight by ultrasound: does it influence the likelihood of cesarean delivery for labor arrest? Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:340e1–340e3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crowther CA, Dodd JM, Hiller JE, Haslam RR, Robinson JS (2012) Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med 9:e1001192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yeo L, Romero R (2009) Sonographic evaluation in the second stage of labor to improve the assessment of labor progress and its outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:253–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Molina FS, Nicolaides KH (2010) Ultrasound in labor and delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther 27:61–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D (1984) Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 63:485–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 77:7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser WD (2005) Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol 105:763–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bird GC (1976) The importance of flexion in vacuum extractor delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 83:194–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ben-Haroush A, Melamed N, Kaplan B, Yogev Y (2007) Predictors of failed operative vaginal delivery: a single-center experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:308e1–308e5Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benavides L, Wu JM, Hundley AF, Ivester TS, Visco AG (2005) The impact of occiput posterior fetal head position on the risk of anal sphincter injury in forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1702–1706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Souka AP, Haritos T, Basayiannis K, Noikokyri N, Antsaklis A (2003) Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 13:59–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A et al (2005) 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 192:868–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Akmal S, Tsoi E, Kametas N, Howard R, Nicolaides KH (2002) Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 12:172–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Hargreaves C, Nicolaides KH (2003) Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:437–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Udayasankar V, Rajesh U, Moselhi M (2007) A pilot study using intra-partum ultrasound to aid in the definition of the position of the fetal head before operative delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 27:568–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O (2002) Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:258–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O (2002) Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:264–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kreiser D, Schiff E, Lipitz S, Kayam Z, Avraham A, Achiron R (2001) Determination of fetal occiput position by ultrasound during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Med 10:283–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chou MR, Kreiser D, Taslimi MM, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY (2004) Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:521–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lieberman E, Davidson K, Lee-Parritz A, Shearer E (2005) Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol 105:974–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rayburn WF, Siemers KH, Legino LJ, Nabity MR, Anderson JC, Patil KD (1989) Dystocia in late labor: determining fetal position by clinical and ultrasonic techniques. Am J Perinatol 6:316–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wong GY, Mok YM, Wong SF (2007) Transabdominal ultrasound assessment of the fetal head and the accuracy of vacuum cup application. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 98:120–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cunningham FG GN, Leveno KJ et al (2001) Williams obstetrics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Malvasi A, Stark M, Ghi T, Farine D, Guido M, Tinelli A (2012) Intrapartum sonography for fetal head asynclitism and transverse position: sonographic signs and comparison of diagnostic performance between transvaginal and digital examination. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zahalka N, Sadan O, Malinger G et al (2005) Comparison of transvaginal sonography with digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:381–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, Rizzo N, Pelusi G, Pilu G (2009) Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:331–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hale R (1998) Rosen’s Management of Labor. Physician’s Judgement and Patient Care (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Le Ray C, Serres P, Schmitz T, Cabrol D, Goffinet F (2007) Manual rotation in occiput posterior or transverse positions: risk factors and consequences on the cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 110:873–879PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reichman O, Gdansky E, Latinsky B, Labi S, Samueloff A (2008) Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 136:25–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ghi T, Youssef A, Pilu G, Malvasi A, Ragusa A (2012) Intrapartum sonographic imaging of fetal head asynclitism. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:238–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Blasi I, D’Amico R, Fenu V et al (2010) Sonographic assessment of fetal spine and head position during the first and second stages of labor for the diagnosis of persistent occiput posterior position: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:210–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Verhoeven CJ, Ruckert ME, Opmeer BC, Pajkrt E, Mol BW (2012) Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict the mode of delivery: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40(1):9–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hopp H (2007) Vaginal-operative Entbindungen, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburt­shilfe, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2011) Operative vaginal delivery. Green-top Guideline No. 26. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Buchmann E, Libhaber E (2008) Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101:285–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C et al (2006) Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ­ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:387–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Maticot-Baptista D, Ramanah R, Collin A, Martin A, Maillet R, Riethmuller D (2009) Ultrasound in the diagnosis of fetal head engagement. A preliminary French prospective study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 38:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dietz HP, Lanzarone V, Simpson JM (2006) Predicting operative delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:409–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rivaux G, Dedet B, Delarue E, Depret S, Closset E, Deruelle P (2012) The diagnosis of fetal head engagement: transperineal ultrasound, a new useful tool? Gynecol Obstet Fertil 40:148–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kamena A, Tutschek B (2006) Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28:753–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC (2009) A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:313–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kalache KD, Duckelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Cichon G, Dudenhausen JW (2009) 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 33:326–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lau WL, Leung WC, Chin R (2009) What is the best transperineal ultrasound parameter for predicting success of vacuum extraction? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33(6):735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lewin D, Sadoul G, Beuret T (1977) Measuring the height of a cephalic presentation: an objective assessment of station. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 7:369–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sherer DM, Abulafia O (2003) Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:430–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dietz HP, Lanzarone V (2005) Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:165–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Iliescu D, Adam G, Tudorache S, Antsaklis P, Cernea N (2012) An easier approach to fetal head direction quantification using transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi: 10.1002/uog.11117
  68. 68.
    Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA (2008) Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:|199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Barbera A, Becker T, MacFarlane H, Hobbins J (2003) Assessment of fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Teaching DVD American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Duckelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA et al (2010) 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 35:216–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dückelmann AM, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD (2009) 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 34:364–366Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dückelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Bamberg C, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD (2012) Impact of intrapartal ultrasound to assess fetal head position and station on the type of obstetrical interventions at full cervical dilatation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25:484–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Slowinski T et al (2011) 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 37:712–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Fotopoulou C et al (2012) Angle of progression measurements of fetal head at term: a systematic comparison between open magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:161.e1–161.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Barbera AF, Imani F, Becker T, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC (2009) 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 33:320–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bamberg C, Rademacher G, Güttler F et al (2012) Human birth observed in real-time open magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:505.e1-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Oxorn H (ed) (1986) Human labor and birth, 5th edn. Appleton-Century-Crofts, NorwalkGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, Puertas A, Nicolaides KH (2010) What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36(4):493–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ghi T, Contro E, Farina A, Nobile M, Pilu G (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in monitoring progression of labor: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36:500–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W (2011) A study of progress of labour using intrapartum translabial ultrasound, assessing head station, direction, and angle of descent. BJOG 118:62–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fuchs I, Tutschek B, Henrich W (2008) Visualization of the fetal fontanels and skull sutures by three-dimensional translabial ultrasound during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:484–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ObstetricsCharité – University HospitalBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations