Diagnostic accuracy of pre-induction cervical elastography, volume, length, and uterocervical angle for the prediction of successful induction of labor with dinoprostone.
Cervical length
Cervical volume
Elastography
Labor
Uterocervical angle
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
received:
16
02
2023
accepted:
08
05
2023
medline:
18
8
2023
pubmed:
21
5
2023
entrez:
21
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The study's aim is to define among a group of ultrasonographic cervical measurements a candidate parameter predictive of successful of induction of labor in term pregnancies with unfavorable cervix. This prospective observational study included 141 pregnant women at term with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6). All patients underwent clinical and ultrasonographic cervical evaluation before dinoprostone induction. Pre-induction cervical assessments included the Bishop score, cervical length, cervical volume, uterocervical angle, and cervical elastographic parameters. Vaginal delivery (VD) was accepted as successful dinoprostone induction. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify the potential risk factors significantly associated with CS while controlling for possible confounding variables. The vaginal delivery rate was 74% (n = 93) and the cesarean section (CS) rate was 26% (n = 32). Sixteen patients who had a cesarean section due to fetal distress before the active phase of labor were excluded from the study. The mean induction-to-delivery interval was 1176.1 ± 352 (540-2150) for VD and 1359.4 ± 318.4 (780-2020) for CS (p = 0.01). Bishop score was lower in women with cesarean section (p = 0.002). When both groups were compared in terms of delivery type, no difference was found between cervical elastography values, cervical volume, cervical length, and uterocervical angle measurements. Multivariable logistic regression model failed to show significant differences between cervical elastography values, cervical volume, cervical length, and uterocervical angle measurements. Cervical length, cervical elastography, cervical volume, and uterocervical angle measurements did not provide a clinically useful prediction of outcomes following labor induction in our study group with unfavorable cervix. Cervical length measurements significantly predicted the time interval from induction to delivery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37210702
doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07076-8
pii: 10.1007/s00404-023-07076-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dinoprostone
K7Q1JQR04M
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1301-1311Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Cheng YW, Gienger A, Little SE, Padula A (2009). Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor
Verhoeven CJM, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, Van Der Post JAM, Mol BWJ (2013) Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42:500–508
doi: 10.1002/uog.12467
pubmed: 23533137
Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, van der Post JA, Pajkrt E, Opmeer BC, Mol BW (2013) The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol 30(8):625–630. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1331024 . (Epub 2013 Jan 2 PMID: 23283806)
doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1331024
pubmed: 23283806
Patabendige M, Athulathmudali SR (2021) Predicting the success of induction of labour using cervical volume. BMC Res Notes 14(1):453. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05865-5.PMID:34922611;PMCID:PMC8684113
doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05865-5.PMID:34922611;PMCID:PMC8684113
pubmed: 34922611
pmcid: 8684113
Athulathmudali SR, Patabendige M, Chandrasinghe SK, De Silva PHP (2021) Transvaginal two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of cervical volume to predict the outcome of the induction of labour: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21(1):433. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03929-9.PMID:34158010;PMCID:PMC8218494
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03929-9.PMID:34158010;PMCID:PMC8218494
pubmed: 34158010
pmcid: 8218494
Singh PK, Srivastava R, Kumar I, Rai S, Pandey S, Shukla RC, Verma A (2022) Evaluation of uterocervical angle and cervical length as predictors of spontaneous preterm birth. Indian J Radiol Imaging 32(1):10–15. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1741411.PMID:35722650;PMCID:PMC9200462
doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1741411.PMID:35722650;PMCID:PMC9200462
pubmed: 35722650
pmcid: 9200462
Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R, Klockenbusch W, Steinhard J (2012) Reliability of cervix elastography in the late first and second trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med 33:E101–E107
doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1299330
pubmed: 22623133
Pereira S, Frick AP, Poon LC, Zamprakou A, Nicolaides KH (2014) Successful induction of labor: prediction by preinduction cervical length, angle of progression and cervical elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44(4):468–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13411
doi: 10.1002/uog.13411
pubmed: 24832011
Londero AP, Schmitz R, Bertozzi S, Driul L, Fruscalzo A (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting labor induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinat Med 44(2):167–178
doi: 10.1515/jpm-2015-0035
pubmed: 26011923
Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K (2011) Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38:52–56
doi: 10.1002/uog.9021
pubmed: 21484905
Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS (2013) Imaging analysis of cervical elastography for prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med 32:937–946
doi: 10.7863/ultra.32.6.937
pubmed: 23716514
Hee L, Rasmussen CK, Schlütter JM, Sandager P, Uldbjerg N (2014) Quantitative sonoelastography of the uterine cervix prior to induction of labor as a predictor of cervical dilation time. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 93:684–690
doi: 10.1111/aogs.12389
pubmed: 24702544
Fruscalzo A, Londero A, Frohlich C, Meyer-Wittkopf M, Schmitz R (2015) Quantitative elastography of the cervix for predicting labor induction success. Ultraschall Med 36:65–73
pubmed: 24557633
Nazzaro G, Saccone G, Miranda M, Crocetto F, Zullo F, Locci M (2022) Cervical elastography using E-cervix for prediction of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies with threatened preterm labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 35(2):330–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1716721
doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1716721
pubmed: 31975624
Dilek TUK, Gurbuz A, Yazici G, Arslan M, Gulhan S, Pata O et al (2006) Comparison of cervical volume and cervical length to predict preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasound. Am J Perinatol 23(3):167–172. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-934102
doi: 10.1055/s-2006-934102
pubmed: 16586237
Rozenberg P, Rafii A, Senat MV, Dujardin A, Rapon J, Ville Y (2003) Predictive value of two-dimensional and three dimensional multiplanar ultrasound evaluation of cervix in preterm labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 13:237–241
doi: 10.1080/jmf.13.4.237.241
pubmed: 12854923
Won YB, Han SW, Kim EH (2020) Clinical factors and ultrasound parameters to predict successful vaginal delivery following labour induction. J Obstet Gynaecol 40(3):360–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2019.1647516
doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1647516
pubmed: 31482742
Kim JY, Kim HJ, Hahn MH, Jeon HJ, Cho GJ, Hong SC et al (2013) Three-dimensional volumetric gray-scale uterine cervix histogram prediction of days to delivery in full term pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Sci 56(5):312–319. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2013.56.5.312
doi: 10.5468/ogs.2013.56.5.312
pubmed: 24328021
pmcid: 3784126
Farràs Llobet A, Higueras T, Calero IZ, Marti LR, Maiz N, Goya MM et al (2020) Prospective evaluation of the uterocervical angle as a predictor of spontaneous preterm birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 99(11):1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13879
doi: 10.1111/aogs.13879
pubmed: 32311754
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
doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0915-x
pubmed: 19130065
Grobman WA, Simon C (2007) Factors associated with the length of the latent phase during labor induction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 132:163–166
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.09.002
pubmed: 17010501
ACOG Practice Bulletin No (2009) 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour (2011) Geneva: world health organization; 1, BACKGROUND. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK131965/
Alfrevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S et al (2016) Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-efectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess (Winch, Engl) 20:1–584
doi: 10.3310/hta20650
Pergialiotis V et al (2022) Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9
pubmed: 36472645
pmcid: 10348969
Cavoretto PI et al (2021) Quantification of posterior risk related to intrapartum FIGO 2015 criteria for cardiotocography in the second stage of labor. Fetal Diagn Ther 48(2):149–157. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512658 . (Epub 2021 Jan 28 PMID: 33508830)
doi: 10.1159/000512658
pubmed: 33508830
Cavoretto PI et al (2023) Hazard and cumulative incidence of umbilical cord metabolic acidemia at birth in fetuses experiencing the second stage of labor and pathologic intrapartum fetal heart rate requiring expedited delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307(4):1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06594-1 . (Epub 2022 May 21. PMID: 35596749; PMCID: PMC10023766)
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06594-1
pubmed: 35596749
Seidenari A et al (2022) The cumulative incidence of neonatal metabolic acidemia after terminal bradycardia in the 2nd stage of labor: a survival-based model. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06619-9 . (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35635618)
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06619-9
pubmed: 35635618
pmcid: 10023766
Yuan L et al (2023) Efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter and dinoprostone for labor induction in multipara at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06891-9
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06891-9
pubmed: 37115275