Does third trimester cervical length predict duration of first stage of labor?
Cervical dilation
Duration of labor
Measurement of cervical length
Obstetrics
Transvaginal ultrasound
Journal
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift
ISSN: 1613-7671
Titre abrégé: Wien Klin Wochenschr
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 21620870R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
20
02
2019
accepted:
19
06
2019
pubmed:
18
7
2019
medline:
24
10
2019
entrez:
18
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To examine the association between third trimester cervical length (CL) measurement and duration of the first stage of labor. This prospective cohort study included women with a singleton pregnancy who had routine CL measurements taken by transvaginal ultrasonography between 37 and 39 weeks gestation. Subjective duration of the first stage of labor was defined as the duration of contractions that the women subjectively had from the onset of regular contractions to full effacement of the cervix. Objective duration of first stage of labor was defined as 3 cm cervical dilation independent of cervical effacement until full effacement of the cervix. Associations between variables were analyzed using nonparametric correlations coefficients. A model relating the duration of labor to predictors was built using linear regression. In this analysis a total of 129 women were included. There was no significant correlation between CL and subjective duration of labor (ρ = -0.037, p = 0.695); however, a reduction in CL increased the objective duration of the first stage of labor (ρ = -0.269, p = 0.013). In univariate analysis parity (p = 0.018), hypertensive disorders (p = 0.013) and induction of labor (p = 0.022) were significantly associated with subjective duration of the first stage of labor. A long cervix in the third trimester is not associated with a prolonged first stage of labor. Induction of labor and multiparity were associated with a shorter first stage of labor while hypertension was associated with a longer duration of labor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31312917
doi: 10.1007/s00508-019-1527-0
pii: 10.1007/s00508-019-1527-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
468-474Références
Semin Perinatol. 2017 Nov;41(7):427-437
pubmed: 28826790
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005 May;17(5):315-22
pubmed: 16147844
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;32(5):652-6
pubmed: 18702094
N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 27;358(13):1346-53
pubmed: 18367737
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013 Sep;39(9):1391-6
pubmed: 23815073
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 02;16:71
pubmed: 27039302
Indian J Med Res. 2017 Oct;146(4):498-504
pubmed: 29434064
Semin Perinatol. 2012 Oct;36(5):315-23
pubmed: 23009962
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Apr;21(2):74-9
pubmed: 26740166
Semin Perinatol. 2009 Oct;33(5):317-24
pubmed: 19796729
N Engl J Med. 1998 Mar 5;338(10):663-70
pubmed: 9486996
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;44(4):468-75
pubmed: 24832011
Reproduction. 2012 Apr;143(4):429-38
pubmed: 22344465
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Oct;122(4):863-7
pubmed: 24084546
Am J Perinatol. 2016 Jan;33(1):40-6
pubmed: 26115020
BJOG. 2016 Jan;123(1):16-22
pubmed: 26507579
Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Jun;21(6):353-61
pubmed: 20172738
J Perinatol. 2007 Dec;27(12):749-53
pubmed: 17762846