Advertisement

Intrapartum Sonography and Labor Progression

  • Torbjørn Moe Eggebø
  • Kjell Åsmund Salvesen
Chapter

Abstract

All pregnant women, and in particular the women expecting their first child, want to know if they will deliver vaginally or experience an operative delivery. Will the pain and effort put into laboring be worth it? Are there ways of telling them that they will have a successful vaginal delivery before labor starts, in the early stages of labor, or if they experience a protracted labor? Should a cesarean section be preferred? Information about labor progress might help the women feel safe. This chapter will explore the possibility of new ultrasound methods to assess labor progress, but also how the same ultrasound methods predict labor outcome.

Keywords

Cervical Dilatation Fetal Head Ischial Spine Birth Canal Operative Vaginal Delivery 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Erik Andreas Torkildsen performed some of the ultrasound acquisitions illustrated in this chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Friedman E (1954) The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 68(6):1568–1575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joy S (2011) Abnormal labor. Medscape. http://­emedicine.medscape.com/article/273053-overview. Updated: 12 Aug 2011
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization (2003) Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth: a guide for midwives and doctors. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lauzon L, Hodnett E (2000) Caregivers’ use of strict criteria for diagnosing active labour in term pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD000936Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolas T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Henriksen T, Hager R, Ingemarsson I et al (2003) Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(4):864–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR (1965) Station of the fetal presenting part. I. Pattern of descent. Am J Obstet Gynecol 93(4):522–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR (1976) Station of the fetal presenting part. VI. Arrest of descent in nulliparous. Obstet Gynecol 47(2):129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Philpott RH (1972) Graphic records in labour. Br Med J 4(5833):163–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Driscoll K, Meagher D, Robson M (2003) Active management of labour. Elsevier Limited, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergsjo P, Koss KS (1982) Interindividual variation in vaginal examination findings during labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 61(6):509–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buchmann E, Libhaber E (2008) Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101(3):285–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(5):437–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, Dittmar A, Gaucherand P, Cucherat M, Redarce T 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(3):868–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherer DM (2007) Intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30(2):123–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(6):369–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sherer DM, Abulafia O (2003) Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21(5):430–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz HP, Lanzarone V (2005) Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25(2):165–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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(3):313–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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(3):326–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, Puertas A, Nicolaides KH (2010) What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter to assess fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36(4):493–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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(6):753–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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(1):62–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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(3):331–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eggebo TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Okland I, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA (2006) Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27(4):387–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KA, Eggebo TM (2011) Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37(6):702–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nizard J, Haberman S, Paltieli Y, Gonen R, Ohel G, Le Bourthe Y, Ville Y (2009) Determination of fetal head station and position during labor: a new technique that combines ultrasound and a ­position-tracking system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(4):404–e1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharf Y, Farine D, Batzalel M, Megel Y, Shenhav M, Jaffa A, Barnea O (2007) Continuous monitoring of cervical dilatation and fetal head station during labor. Med Eng Phys 29(1):61–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cunningham FG, Williams JW (2005) Williams obstetrics, 22nd edn. McGraw-Hill Medical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland I, Gjessing LK, Smedvig E, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA (2008) Prediction of labour and delivery by ascertaining the fetal head position with transabdominal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabour rupture of membranes after 37 weeks. Ultraschall Med 29(2):179–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Falzone S, Chauhan SP, Mobley JA, Berg TG, Sherline DM, Devoe LD (1998) Unengaged vertex in nulliparous women in active labor. A risk factor for cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 43(8):676–680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dietz HP, Lanzarone V, Simpson JM (2006) Predicting operative delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27(4):409–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(6):474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu Q, An Y, Cao H, Zhong T (2011) A study about sonographic parameters to assess labor progression use three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(1):120, Abstract ISUOG 2011, DOI:  101002/uog9467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gilboa Y, Bertucci E, Cani C, Haas J, Mazza V, Achiron R (2011) Pelvimetry by LaborPro system for the diagnosis of dystocia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(S1):120, Abstract ISUOG 2011, DOI:  101002/uog9466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mazza V, Bertucci E, Pati M, Cani M, Latella S, Blasi I, Yakobi T et al (2011) An innovative method combining ultrasound and position tracker for 3D continuous visual monitoring of vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(S1):225–226, Abstract ISUOG 2011, DOI:  101002/uog9821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baskett TF, Calder AA, Arulkumaran S, Munro Kerr JM, Munro Kerr JMO (2007). In: Baskett TF, Calder AA, Arulkumaran S (eds) Munro Kerr’s operative obstetrics, Centenary edition, 11th edn. W.B. Saunders, Edinburgh; illustrated by Ian RamsdenGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zimerman AL, Smolin A, Maymon R, Weinraub Z, Herman A, Tobvin Y (2009) Intrapartum measurement of cervical dilatation using translabial 3-dimensional ultrasonography: correlation with digital examination and interobserver and intraobserver agreement assessment. J Ultrasound Med 28(10):1289–1296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eggebo TM, Okland I, Heien C, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA (2009) Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88(3):325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KA, Eggebo TM (2011) Agreement between 2D and 3D transperineal ultrasound methods in assessing fetal head descent in the first stage of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 132. doi:  10.1002/uog.9065
  40. 40.
    Williams PL, Bannister LH, Gray H (1995) Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of medicine and surgery, 38th edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mongelli M, Benzie R (2011) Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(4):481–482; author reply 2–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ville Y (2006) From obstetric ultrasound to ultrasonographic obstetrics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27(1):1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torbjørn Moe Eggebø
    • 1
  • Kjell Åsmund Salvesen
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  2. 2.National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim University Hospital (St. Olav’s Hospital)TrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s and Women’s HealthNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations