Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sonographic cervical length as a predictor of type of delivery after induced labor

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was undertaken to evaluate the comparative value of sonographic cervical length and the Bishop score in predicting the type of delivery after induced labor.

Methods

The Bishop score was determined by digital examination and cervical length by transvaginal sonography in 177 women.

Results

The best cut-off points for predicting type of delivery found with ROC curves were 25.2 mm for cervical length and 5 for the Bishop score. The Bishop score was not predictive of type of delivery. Cervical length was related to type of delivery in women with Bishop score ≤5. A logistic regression model showed that only cervical length ≥25.2 mm, parity, and body mass index significantly predicted the likelihood of cesarean delivery.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that both Bishop score and sonographic cervical length can contribute to predicting type of delivery after labor induction, but cervical length is a better predictor of the risk of cesarean delivery.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. RCOG (2001) Induction of labour. In Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 9. RCOG Clinical Support Unit, London

  2. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M (1999) Induction of labour and the relationship to caesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:628–633

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Crowley P (2001) Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term (Cochrane Review). In The Cochrane Lybrary, issue 3. Update Software, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Phelps JY, Higby K, Smyth MH, Ward JA, Arredondo F, Mayer AR (1995) Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:942

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A (1987) Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 27:309–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ (1992) The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 79:214–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boozarjomehri F, Timor-Tritsch I, Chao CR, Fox HE (1994) Transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix before labour: presence of cervical wedging is associated with shorter duration of induced labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171:1081–1087

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D (1996) Factors predicting successful labour induction. Obstet Gynecol 88:990–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A (1998) Prediction of successful induction of labour: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound 7:183–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ware V, Raynor D (2000) Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labour induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1030–1032

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C (2002) Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labour induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:254–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH (2001) Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18:623–628

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hatfield Ann S, Sanchez Ramos Luis, Kaunitz Andrew M (2007) Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labour induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(2):186–192

    Google Scholar 

  14. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniu N, Antsaklis A (2006) Sonographic cervical length measurement before labour induction in term nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther 21:34–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park KH (2007) Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement in predicting failed labour induction and caesarean delivery for failure to progress in nulliparous women. J Korean Med Sci 22:722–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J (2007) Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labour induction at term: tolerability and prediction of caesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:568–573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hendrix NW, Chauan SP, Morrison JC, Magna EF, Martin JN, Devoe LD (1998) Bishop score: a poor diagnostic test to predict failed induction versus vaginal delivery. South Med J 91:248–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gómez Laencina AM, Sánchez FG, Giménez JH, Martínez MS, Valverde Martínez JA, Vizcaíno VM (2007) Comparison of ultrasonographic cervical length and the Bishop score in predicting successful labour induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86(7):799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Crane JM (2006) Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49(3):573–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tan PC, Khine PP, Sabdin NH, Vallikkannu N, Sulaiman S (2011) Effect of membrane sweeping on cervical length by transvaginal ultrasonography and impact of cervical shortening on caesarean delivery. J Ultrasound Med 30(2):227–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ramanathan G, Yu C, Osei E, Nicolaides KH (2003) Ultrasound examination at 37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of pregnancy outcome: the value of cervical assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:598–603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vankayalapati P, Sethna F, Roberts N, Ngeh N, Thilaganathan B, Bhide A (2008) Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: prediction of spontaneous onset of labour and successful vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:328–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Roos C, Arabin B, Stoutenbeek P, Visser GH (2009) Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in the supine and upright positions versus Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labour at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33(2):213–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Eggebø TM, Økland 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):325–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park KH, Hong J-S, Shin DM, Kang WS (2009) Prediction of failed labour induction in parous women at term: role of previous obstetric history, digital examination and sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 35(2):301–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Park KH, Hong JS, Kang WS, Shin DM, Kim SN (2009) Body mass index, Bishop score, and sonographic measurement of the cervical length as predictors of successful labour induction in twin gestations. J Perinat Med 37(5):519–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Verhoeven CJ, Oudenaarden A, Hermus MA, Porath MM, Oei SG, Mol BW (2009) Validation of models that predict Caesarean section after induction of labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 34(3):316–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Peregrine E, O′Brien P, Omar R, Jauniaux E (2006) Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of caesarean delivery after induction of labour. Obstet Gynecol 107:227–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rane SM, Guirguis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH (2005) Models for the prediction of successful induction of labour based on pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 17:315–322

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cheung CW, Leung TY, Sahota DS, Chan OK, Chan LW, Fung TY, Lau TK (2010) Outcome of induction of labour using maternal characteristics, ultrasound assessment and biochemical state of the cervix. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 23(12):1406–1412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, Baytur Y (2009) Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280:357–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, Hospital Reina Sofía, Avd. Intendente Jorge Palacios, 1, 30003, Murcia, Spain

    Ana María Gómez-Laencina

  2. Gynecology and Obstetrics Department, Hospital Virgen de la Luz, Cuenca, Spain

    Cristina Pages García, Laura Villanueva Asensio & Jose Andrés Guijarro Ponce

  3. Social and Health Research Centre, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain

    Monserrat Solera Martínez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno

Authors
  1. Ana María Gómez-Laencina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Pages García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Villanueva Asensio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jose Andrés Guijarro Ponce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Monserrat Solera Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana María Gómez-Laencina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gómez-Laencina, A.M., García, C.P., Asensio, L.V. et al. Sonographic cervical length as a predictor of type of delivery after induced labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1523–1528 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2178-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2178-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation