Ultrasound in labor and delivery: opportunities and prospects


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The authors carried out a systematic analysis of the data available in the modern literature on the features of using ultrasound in labor and delivery to determine the position of the fetus, the insertion of the fetal head, the ultrasound signs of a favorable outcome of vaginal delivery and the prediction of surgical delivery. They conducted studies of current protocols for the use of ultrasound in various clinical situations associated with the high probability of developing the clinical mismatch between of the fetal head and the maternal pelvis, obstructed operative vaginal delivery (vacuum extraction, obstetric forceps), as well as the possibilities of evaluating the uterus in the early postpartum period.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

I. V Ignatko

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: iradocent@mail.ru
doctor of medical Sciences, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of obstetrics, gynecology and Perinatology of the faculty of medicine

T. E Kuzmina

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: tkous@mail.ru
сandidate of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Faculty of Medicine

A. N Strizhakov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: kafedra-agp@mail.ru
doctor of medical Sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, head of the Department of obstetrics, gynecology and Perinatology of the faculty of medicine

T. M Silaeva

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: tatyana.silaeva@yandex.ru
аssistant of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Medical Faculty

M. A Arkhipova

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: marya.arkhipova@yandex.ru
a 6th year student of the medical faculty

References

  1. Souk a A. P., Haritos T., Basayiannis K., Noikokyri N., Antsaklis A. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003; 13(1): 59-63.
  2. Kurjak A., Chervenak Frank A. Donald school textbook of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. 4th ed. Jaypee Brothers Medical Pub., 2017.1150 p.
  3. Приходько А.М., Романов А.Ю., Баев О.Р. Ультразвуковая оценка положения головки плода в родах. Акушерство и гинекология. 2019; 3: 5-9.
  4. Ghi T., Eggeb0 T., Lees C., Kalache K., Rozenberg P., Youssef A. et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 128-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19072.
  5. Rozenberg P., Porcher R., Salomon L.J., Boirot F., Morin C., Ville Y. Comparison of the learning curves of digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position during labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 31(3): 332-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ uog.5267.
  6. Wiafe Y.A., Whitehead B., Venables H., Nakua E.K. The effectiveness of intrapartum ultrasonography in assessing cervical dilatation, head station and position: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound. 2016; 24(4): 222-32.
  7. Shetty J., Aahir V., Pandey D., Adiga P., Kamath A. Fetal head position during the first stage of labor: comparison between vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasound. ISRN Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 2014: 314617. https://doi. org/10.1155/2014/314617.
  8. Wiafe Y.A., Whitehead B., Venables H., Dassah E.T., Eggeb0 T.M. Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of cervical dilatation and its value in detecting active labor. J. Ultrasound. 2018; 21(3): 233-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-018-0309-2.
  9. Ramphul M., Ooi P.V., Burke G., Kennelly M.M., Said S.A., Montgomery A.A., Murphy D.J. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG. 2014; 121(8): 1029-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12810.
  10. Malvasi A., Giacci F., Gustapane S., Sparic R., Barbera A., Tinelli A. Intrapartum sonographic signs: new diagnostic tools in malposition and malrotation. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(15): 2408-13. https://doi.org/10.3109/1 4767058.2015.1092137.
  11. Nishimura K., Yoshimura K., Kubo T., Hachisuga T. Objective diagnosis of arrested labor on transperineal ultrasound. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2016; 42(7): 803-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12967.
  12. Pilliod R.A., Caughey A.B. Fetal malpresentation and malposition: diagnosis and management. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North. Am. 2017; 44(4): 631-43. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2017.08.003.
  13. Bellussi F., Ghi T., Youssef A., Salsi G., Giorgetta F., Parma D. et al. The use of intrapartum ultrasound to diagnose malpositions and cephalic malpresenta-tions. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 217(6): 633-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ajog.2017.07.025.
  14. Phipps H., Hyett J.A., Graham K., Carseldine W.J., Tooher J., de Vries B. Is there an association between sonographically determined occipito-transverse position in the second stage of labor and operative delivery? Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2014; 93(10): 1018-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12465.
  15. Choi S.K., Park Y.G., Lee da H., Ko H.S., Park I.Y., Shin J.C. Sonographic assessment of fetal occiput position during labor for the prediction of labor dystocia and perinatal outcomes. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(24): 3988-92. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2016.1152250.
  16. Савельева Г.М., Сухих Г.Т., Серов В.Н., Радзинский В.Е., ред. Акушерство. Национальное руководство. 2-е изд. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2015. 1088 с.
  17. Ghi T., Bellussi F., Pilu G. Sonographic diagnosis of lateral asynclitism: a new subtype of fetal head malposition as a main determinant of early labor arrest. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 45(2): 229-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ uog.13385.
  18. Chor C.M., Poon L.C.Y., Leung T.Y. Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32(1): 31-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.
  19. Maged A.M., Soliman E.M., Abdellatif A.A., Nabil M., Said O.I., Mohesen M.N. et al. Measurement of the fetal occiput-spine angle during the first stage of labor as predictor of the progress and outcome of labor. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32(14): 2332-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1432589.
  20. Eggeb0 T.M., Hassan W.A., Salvesen K.A., Lindtj0rn E., Lees C.C. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: a two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 43(2): 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13210.
  21. Ghi T., Bellussi F., Azzarone C., Krsmanovic J., Franchi L., Youssef A. et al. The “occiput-spine angle”: a new sonographic index of fetal head deflexion during the first stage of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 215(1): 84. e1-7. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.020.
  22. Ooi P.V., Ramphul M., Said S., Burke G., Kennelly M.M., Murphy D.J. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head circumference at the onset of labor as a predictor of operative delivery. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28(18): 2182-6. https:// doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.980810.
  23. Duckelmann A.M., Bamberg C., Michaelis S.A., Lange J., Nonnenmacher A., Dudenhausen J.W., Kalache K.D. 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. 2010; 35(2): 216-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7521.
  24. Kameyama S., Sato A., Miura H., Kumagai J., Sato N., Shimizu D. et al. Prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery by transperineal ultrasound performed just after full cervical dilatation is determined. J. Med. Ultrason. (2001). 2016; 43(2): 243-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-015-0681-x.
  25. Мифтахутдинова Д.К., Терегулова Л.Е., Галимова И.Р. Протокол ультразвукового исследования в родах. Практическая медицина. 2015; 4: 143-6.
  26. Barbera A.F., Pombar X., Perugino G., Lezotte D.C., Hobbins J.C. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 33(3): 313-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6329.
  27. Marsoosi V., Pirjani R., Mansouri B., Eslamian L., Jamal A., Heidari R., Rahimi-Foroushani A. Role of ‘angle of progression’ in prediction of delivery mode. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2015; 41(11): 1693-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jog.12798.
  28. Kalache K.D., Duckelmann A.M., Michaelis S.A., Lange J., Cichon G., Dudenhausen J.W. 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. 2009; 33(3): 326-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6294.
  29. Torkildsen E.A., Salvesen K.A., Eggeb0 T.M. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 37(6): 702-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ uog.8951.
  30. Rivaux G., Dedet B., Delarue E., Depret S., Closset E., Deruelle P. The diagnosis of fetal head engagement: transperineal ultrasound, a new useful tool? Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2012; 40(3): 148-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gyobfe.2011.07.012.
  31. Ghi T., Maroni E., Youssef A., Morselli-Labate A.M., Paccapelo A., Montaguti E. et al. Sonographic pattern of fetal head descent: relationship with duration of active second stage of labor and occiput position at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 44(1): 82-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13324.
  32. Yonetani N., Yamamoto R., Murat a M., Nakajima E., Taguchi T., Ishii K., Mitsuda N. Prediction of time to delivery by transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 49(2): 246-51. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.15944.
  33. Muramoto M., Ichizuka K., Hasegawa J., Nakamura M., Dohi S., Saito H., Nagatsuka M. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound for evaluating uterine contraction intensity in the second stage of labor. J. Med. Ultrason. (2001). 2017; 44(1): 117-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-016-0752-7.
  34. Ghi T., Youssef A., Maroni E., Arcangeli T., De Musso F., Bellussi F. et al. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal head progression in active second stage of labor and mode of delivery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 41(4): 430-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12379.
  35. Youssef A., Maroni E., Cariello L., Bellussi F., Montaguti E., Salsi G. et al. Fetal head-symphysis distance and mode of delivery in the second stage of labor. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2014; 93(10): 1011-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ aogs.12454.
  36. Bultez T., Quibel T., Bouhanna P., Popowski T., Resche-Rigon M., Rozenberg P. Angle of fetal head progression measured using transperineal ultrasound as a predictive factor of vacuum extraction failure. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 48(1): 86-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14951.
  37. Sainz J.A., Borrero C., Aquise A., Serrano R., Gutierrez L., Fernandez-Palacin A. Utility of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to predict cases of failure in vacuum extraction attempt and need of cesarean section to complete delivery. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(8): 1348-52. https://doi.org/10.3109/ 14767058.2015.1048680.
  38. Gilboa Y., Moran O., Kivilevitch Z., Kees S., Borkowsky T., Achiron R., Weissmann-Brenner A. Can ultrasound performed in prolonged second stage of labor predict the difficulty and success rates of operative vaginal delivery? Ultraschall Med. 2016; 37(4): 399-404. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1398831.
  39. Barak O., Levy R., Flidel O., Zaks S., Gillor M. The routine use of intrapartum ultrasound in clinical decision-making during the second stage of labor-does it have any impact on delivery outcomes? Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2018; 83: 9-14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000455847.
  40. Kasbaoui S., Severac F., Aissi G., Gaudineau A., Lecointre L., Akladios C. et al. Predicting the difficulty of operative vaginal delivery by ultrasound measurement of fetal head station. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 216(5): 507. e1-507. e9. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ajog.2017.01.007.
  41. Ghi T., Youssef A., Maroni E., Arcangeli T., De Musso F., Bellussi F. et al. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal head progression in active second stage of labor and mode of delivery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 41(4): 430-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12379.
  42. Sainz J.A., Borrero C., Aquise A., Garci'a-Mejido J.A., Gutierrez L., Fernandez-Palacin A. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound with pushing used to predict the difficulty in vacuum-assisted delivery of fetuses in non-occiput posterior position. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(20): 3400-5. https://doi.org/ 10.3109/14767058.2015.1130816
  43. Sainz J.A., Borrero C., Fernandez-Palacin A., Aquise A., Valdivieso P., Pastor L., Garrido R. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound as a predictor of instrumentation difficulty with vacuum-assisted delivery in primiparous women. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28(17): 2041-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.976547.
  44. Magnard C., Perrot M., Fanget C., Paviot-Trombert B., Raia-Barjat T., Chauleur C. Instrumental delivery with perineum-fetal head distance >55 MM on ultrasound. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2016; 44(2): 82-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gyobfe.2015.12.003.
  45. Sainz J.A., Garci'a-Mejido J.A., Aquise A., Bonomi M.J., Borrero C., De La Fuente P., Ferndndez-Palacin A. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound used to predict cases of complicated operative (vacuum and forceps) deliveries in nulliparous women. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2017; 96(12): 1490-7. https://doi. org/10.1111/aogs.13230.
  46. Cuerva M.J., Bamberg C., Tobias P., Gil M.M., De La Calle M., Bartha J.L. Use of intrapartum ultrasound in the prediction of complicated operative forceps delivery of fetuses in non-occiput posterior position. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 43(6): 687-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13256.
  47. Gilboa Y., Frenkel T.I., Schlesinger Y., Rousseau S., Hamiel D., Achiron R., Perlman S. Visual biofeedback using transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 91-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ uog.18962.
  48. Bellussi F., Alcamisi L., Guizzardi G., Parma D., Pilu G. Traditionally vs sonographically coached pushing in second stage of labor: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 87-90. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.19044.
  49. Diniz C.P., Araujo Jdnior E., Lima M.M., Guazelli C.A., Moron A.F. Ultrasound and Doppler assessment of uterus during puerperium after normal delivery. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 27(18): 1905-11. https://doi.org/10.3109/ 14767058.2014.882895.
  50. Krapp M., Baschat A.A., Hankeln M., Gembruch U. Gray scale and color Doppler sonography in the third stage of labor for early detection of failed placental separation. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 15(2): 138-42.
  51. Krapp M., Axt-Fliedner R., Berg C., Geipel A., Germer U., Gembruch U. Clinical application of grey scale and colour Doppler sonography during abnormal third stage of labour. Ultraschall Med. 2007; 28(1): 63-6.
  52. Oba T., Hasegawa J., Sekizawa A. Postpartum ultrasound: postpartum assessment using ultrasonography. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(14): 1726-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1223034.
  53. Fuller K.P., Feldman D.M. Ultrasound evaluation of the postpartum endometrial cavity. J. Reprod. Med. 2015; 60(1-2): 3-5.
  54. Deans R., Dietz H.P. Ultrasound of the post-partum uterus. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006; 46(4): 345-9.
  55. Sokol E.R., Casele H., Haney E.I. Ultrasound examination of the postpartum uterus: what is normal? J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 15(2): 95-9.
  56. Weissbach T., Haikin-Herzberger E., Bacci-Hugger K., Shechter-Maor G., Fejgin M., Biron-Shental T. Immediate postpartum ultrasound evaluation for suspected retained placental tissue in patients undergoing manual removal of placenta. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015; 192: 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejogrb.2015.06.004.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies