Comparing Pre-Induction Ultrasound Parameters and the Bishop Score to Determine Whether Labor Induction Is Successful
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Participants
2.2. Procedures
2.3. Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor Protocol
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tan, P.C.; Suguna, S.; Vallikkannu, N.; Hassan, J. Ultrasound and clinical predictors for cesarean delivery after labor induction at term. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2006, 46, 505–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peregrine, E.; O’Brien, P.; Omar, R.; Jauniaux, E. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 107, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grobman, W.A.; Bailit, J.; Lai, Y.; Reddy, U.M.; Wapner, R.J.; Varner, M.W.; Thorp, J.M.; Leveno, K.J.; Caritis, S.N.; Prasad, M.; et al. Defining failed induction of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 218, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stupar, Z.T.; Mikić, A.N.; Bogavac, M.; Milatović, S.; Sekulić, S. Prediction of labor induction outcome using different clinical parameters. Srp. Arh. Celok. Lek. 2013, 141, 770–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, P.C.; Vallikkannu, N.; Suguna, S.; Quek, K.F.; Hassan, J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: Tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2007, 29, 568–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krsman, A.; Grujić, Z.; Čapko, D.; Dragutinović, Đ.; Baturan, B.; Nikolić, A.; Antić Trifunović, K.; Dickov, I. Ultrasound assessment of cervical status compared to Bishop score-predicting the success of labur induction using a machine learning based model. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 6332–6342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdelhafeez, M.A.; Elguindy, A.E.; Hamed, M.A.; Nawara, M. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of the cervix for prediction of successful induction of labor in nulliparous women. Open J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 10, 892–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holcomb, W.J.; Smeltzer, J.S. Cervical effacement: Variation in belief among clinicians. Obstet. Gynecol. 1991, 78, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
- Buchmann, E.; Libhaber, E. Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2008, 101, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ying, L.C.; Levy, V. Hong Kong Chinese women’s experiences of vaginal examinations in labor. Midwifery 2002, 18, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergstrom, L.; Roberts, J.; Skillman, L.; Seidel, J. “You’ll feel me touching you, sweetie”: Vaginal examinations during the second stage of labor. Birth 1992, 19, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dupuis, O.; Ruimark, S.; Corinne, D.; Simone, T.; Andre, D.; Rene-Charles, R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: Comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2005, 123, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sherer, D.M.; Miodovnik, M.; Bradley, K.S.; Langer, O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: Comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 19, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kawabata, I.; Nagase, A.; Oya, A.; Hayashi, M.; Miyake, H.; Nakai, A.; Takeshita, T. Factors influencing the accuracy of digital examination for determining fetal head position during the first stage of labor. J. Nippon Med. Sch. 2010, 77, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berghella, V.; Bellussi, F.; Schoen, C.N. Evidence-based labor management: Induction of labor (part 2). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM 2020, 2, 100136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- La Verde, M.; Cobellis, L.; Torella, M.; Morlando, M.; Riemma, G.; Schiattarella, A.; De Franciscis, P. Is uterine myomectomy a real contraindication to vaginal delivery? Results from a prospective study. J. Investig. Surg. 2022, 35, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Ramos, L.; Levine, L.D.; Sciscione, A.C.; Mozurkewich, E.L.; Ramsey, P.S.; Adair, C.D.; Kaunitz, A.M.; McKinney, J.A. Methods for the induction of labor: Efficacy and safety. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024, 230, S669–S695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Available online: https://fetalmedicine.org/fmf-certification-2/cervical-assessment-1 (accessed on 23 December 2023).
- Rane, S.M.; Guirgis, R.R.; Higgins, B.; Nicolaides, K.H. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2004, 24, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitarello, P.R.; Yoshizaki, C.; Ruano, R.; Zugaib, M. Prediction of successful labor induction using trans-vaginal sonographic cervical measurements. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2013, 41, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Pandey, N.; Gupta, T. Role of transvaginal sonographic parameters in predicting outcomes of induction of labor: A prospective observational study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2022, 16, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khandelwal, R.; Patel, P.; Pitre, D.; Sheth, T.; Maitra, N. Comparison of cervical length measured by transvaginal ultrasonography and bishop score in predicting response to labor induction. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India 2018, 68, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riemma, G.; La Verde, M.; Schiattarella, A.; Cobellis, L.; De Franciscis, P.; Colacurci, N.; Morlando, M. Efficacy of hyoscine butyl-bromide in shortening the active phase of labor: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2020, 252, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheibani, L.; Wing, D.A. A safety review of medications used for labour induction. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2018, 17, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kamel, R.; Garcia, F.S.; Poon, L.C.; Youssef, A. The usefulness of ultrasound before induction of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 3, 100423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chandra, S.; Crane, J.M.; Hutchens, D.; Young, D.C. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001, 98, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faltin-Traub, E.F.; Boulvain, M.; Faltin, D.L.; Extermann, P.; Irion, O. Reliability of the Bishop score before labor induction at term. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004, 112, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reis, F.M.; Gervasi, M.T.; Florio, P.; Bracelente, G.; Fadalti, M.; Severi, F.M.; Petralgia, F. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: Role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2003, 189, 1361–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gabriel, R.; Darnaud, T.; Chalot, F.; Gonzalez, N.; Leymarie, F.; Quereux, C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 19, 254–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rane, S.M.; Pandis, G.K.; Guirgis, R.R.; Higgins, B.; Nicolaides, K.H. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: The effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2003, 22, 40–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.H.; Roh, C.R.; Kim, J.H. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor. J. Ultrasound Med. 2004, 23, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strobel, E.; Sladkevicius, P.; Rovas, L.; De Smet, F.; Karlsson, E.D.; Valentin, L. Bishop score and ultrasound assessment of the cervix for prediction of time to the onset of labor and time to delivery in prolonged pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 28, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rozenberg, P.; Chevret, S.; Chastang, C.; Ville, Y. Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low Bishop score. BJOG 2005, 112, 192–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keepanasseril, A.; Suri, V.; Bagga, R.; Aggarwal, N. Pre-induction sonographic assessment of the cervix in the prediction of successful induction of labor in nulliparous women. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2007, 47, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sharma, S.K.; Nagpal, M.; Thukral, C. Evaluation of pre-induction scoring by clinical examination vs transvaginal sonography. Int. J. Reproduct. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 6, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamran, A.; Nasir, G.M.; Zia, M.S.; Adnan, Z.; Jadaan, A. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound measured cervical length and Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor at term. J. Soc. Obstet. Gynaecol. Pak. 2022, 12, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Harush, Y.; Kessous, R.; Weintraub, A.Y.; Aricha-Tamir, B.; Steiner, N.; Spiegel, E.; Hershkovitz, R. The use of sonographic cervical length assessment for the prediction of time from induction to delivery. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016, 29, 2332–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khazardoost, S.; Ghotbizadeh Vahdani, F.; Latifi, S.; Borna, S.; Tahani, M.; Rezaei, M.A.; Shafaat, M. Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery compared to Bishop score: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016, 16, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouri, S.S.; Jyothirmayi, T.; Varalakshmi, B. Role of Bishop score and cervical length by transvag-inalultrasound in induction of labour in primigravidae. IOSR-JDMS 2015, 14, 81–85. [Google Scholar]
- Kanwar, S.N.; Reena, P.; Priya, B.K. A comparative study of trans vaginal sonography and modified Bishop’s Score for cervical assessment before induction of labour. Sch. J. App. Med. Sci. 2015, 3, 2284–2288. [Google Scholar]
- Abdelazim, I.A. Sonographic assessment of the cervical length before induction of labor. Asian Pac. J. Reprod. 2012, 1, 253–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kehila, M.; Bougmiza, I.; Ben, H.R.; Abdelfattah, W.; Mahjoub, S.; Channoufi, M.B. Bishop score vs. ultrasound cervical length in the prediction of cervical ripening success and vaginal delivery in nulliparous women. Minerva Ginecol. 2015, 67, 499–505. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, W.J.; Stevens, D.; Welter, S.; Day, D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996, 88, 990–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hatfield, A.S.; Sanchez-Ramos, L.; Kaunitz, A.M. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007, 197, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Adwy, A.M.; Sobh, S.M.; Belal, D.S.; Al-Adwy, A.M.; Sobh, S.M.; Belal, D.S.; Omran, E.F.; Hassan, A.; Saad, A.H.; Afifi, M.M.; et al. Diagnostic accuracy of posterior cervical angle and cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2018, 141, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamel, R.A.; Negm, S.M.; Youssef, A.; Bianchini, L.; Brunelli, E.; Pilu, G.; Soliman, M.; Nicolaides, K.H. Predicting cesarean delivery for failure to progress as an outcome of labor induction in term singleton pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 224, 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prado, C.A.; Araujo Júnior, E.; Duarte, G.; Quintana, S.M.; Tonni, G.; Cavalli, R.C.; Marcolin, A.C. Predicting success of labor induction in singleton term pregnancies by combining maternal and ultrasound variables. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016, 29, 3511–3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhoeven, C.J.; Opmeer, B.C.; Oei, S.G.; Latour, V.; van der Post, J.A.; Mol, B.W. 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. 2013, 42, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, Z.H.A.; Chew, K.T.; Velayudham, V.R.V.; Yahaya, Z.; Jamil, A.A.M.; Abu, M.A. Pre-induction cervical assessment using transvaginal ultrasound versus Bishop’s cervical scoring as predictors of successful induction of labor in term pregnancies: A hospital-based comparative clinical trial. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Güneş, G.; Karaçam, Z. The feeling of discomfort during vaginal examination, history of abuse and sexual abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder in women. J. Clin. Nurs. 2017, 26, 2362–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batinelli, L.; Serafini, A.; Nante, N.; Petraglia, F.; Severi, F.M.; Messina, G. Induction of labour: Clinical predictive factors for success and failure. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2018, 38, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Lin, Y.; Jiang, T.; Wang, L.; Li, M.; Wang, Y.; Sun, G.Q.; Xiao, M. Vaginal delivery among women who underwent labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) insert: A retrospective study of 1656 women in China. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019, 32, 1721–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krsman, A.; Stajić, D.; Baturan, B.; Stanković, M.; Kupusinac, A.; Kadić, U.; Pantelić, M.; Gvozdenović, L.; Pop Trajković, S.; Simić, D.; et al. Correlation between increased maternal body mass index and pregnancy complications. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 3508–3513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, Y.-F. Induction of labor at the 39th week and cesarean delivery: A retrospective study in a Shanghai-based maternity hospital. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022, 26, 5918–5925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.-J.; Chen, S.-W.; Xu, X.; Zhang, H.-L.; Yan, J.-Y. Effect of induction of labor on maternal and perinatal outcomes in low-risk singleton pregnancies: A retrospective case-control study. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022, 26, 3967–3972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menichini, D.; Spelta, E.; Rossi, E.; Monari, F.; Di Vinci, P.L.; Petrella, E.; Facchinetti, F.; Neril, I. First-trimester prediction of gestational hypertension through the bioelectrical impedance analysis of the body composition. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022, 26, 1594–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamberg, C.; Scheuermann, S.; Fotopoulou, C.; Slowinski, T.; Dückelmann, A.M.; Teichgräber, U.; Streitparth, F.; Henrich, W.; Dudenhausen, J.W.; Kalache, K.D. Angle of progression measurements of fetal head at term: A systematic comparison between open magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal ultrasound. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012, 206, 161.e1–161.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, Y.; Jin, N.; Chen, Q.; Lv, M.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Xi, F.; Yang, M.; Zhao, B.; Huang, H.; et al. Predictive value of cervical length by ultrasound and cervical strain elastography in labor induction at term. J. Int. Med. Res. 2021, 49, 300060520985338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Cheng, Y.K.Y.; Ho, S.Y.S.; Sahota, D.S.; Hui, L.L.; Poon, L.C.; Leung, T.Y. The predictive value of cervical shear wave elastography in the outcome of labor induction. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand 2020, 99, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mode of Birth | N (%) | Parity |
---|---|---|
Vaginal delivery | 158 (69.9%) | Primipara 79 (50%) |
Multipara 79 (50%) | ||
Cesarean section | 68 (30.1%) | Primipara 52 (76.47%) |
Multipara 16 (23.52%) |
Indication for Labor Induction | Vaginal Delivery, N (%) | Cesarean Section, N (%) | Total, N (%) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Post-term pregnancy | 91 (57.59) | 33 (48.53) | 124 (54.87) | <0.001 |
Hypertensive syndrome in pregnancy | 25 (15.82) | 23 (33.82) | 48 (21.24) | 0.02 |
Oligohydramnios | 18 (11.39) | 2 (2.94) | 20 (8.85) | 0.006 |
Favorable obstetric finding | 9 (5.70) | 7 (10.29) | 16 (7.08) | 0.09 |
Other | 11 (6.96) | 3 (4.41) | 14 (6.19) | 0.038 |
IUGR | 3 (1.90) | 0.0 | 3 (1.33) | 0.99 |
Cholestasis obstetrics | 1 (0.63) | 0.0 | 1 (0.44) | 1.00 |
Characteristic | Successful Induction (Mean ± SD) | Cesarean Section (Mean ± SD) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Cervical length [mm] | 25.14 ± 7.71 | 29.67 ± 6.09 | <0.001 |
Funneling length [mm] | 6.81 ± 5.16 | 4.53 ± 6.05 | <0.001 |
Funneling width [mm] | 3.72 ± 2.63 | 1.91 ± 2.37 | <0.001 |
Posterior cervical angle <120, n (%) ≥120, n (%) | 116.16 ± 16.17 95 (60.13%) 63 (39.87%) | 109.69 ± 19.09 40 (58.82%) 28 (41.18%) | 0.027 |
Fetal head stage [mm] | 32.00 ± 6.54 | 36.38 ± 5.52 | <0.001 |
Position of the fetal head OP, n (%) OA, n (%) OT, n (%) | 11 (6.96%) 33 (20.89%) 114 (72.15%) | 19 (27.94%) 9 (13.24%) 40 (58.82%) | 0.259 |
Estimated fetal weight (gram) | 3536.36 ± 515.58 | 3460.87 ± 498.67 | 0.292 |
Bishop score | 7.66 ± 1.82 | 5.77 ± 1.97 | <0.001 |
Characteristic | SE | p-Value | OR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bishop score | 0.15 | <0.001 | 6.28 | (6.49–7.08) |
Cervical length | 0.49 | <0.001 | 0.38 | (26.49–28.41) |
Funneling length | 0.38 | <0.001 | 2.83 | (4.89–6.40) |
Funneling width | 0.18 | <0.001 | 3.91 | (2.44–3.15) |
Fetal head stage | 0.43 | <0.001 | 0.27 | (33.39–35.09) |
Posterior cervical length | 1.20 | <0.05 | 1.52 | (110.48–115.23) |
Characteristic | Cut-Off | Sensitivity | Specificity | LR+ | LR− | AUC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bishop score | 7 | 0.86 | 0.60 | 2.14 | 0.23 | 0.73 |
Cervical length | 24 | 0.83 | 0.66 | 2.42 | 0.26 | 0.74 |
Funneling length | 10 | 0.69 | 0.51 | 1.41 | 0.51 | 0.60 |
Funneling width | 6 | 0.68 | 0.57 | 1.53 | 0.60 | 0.61 |
Posterior cervical angle | 110 | 0.41 | 0.67 | 1.27 | 0.87 | 0.60 |
Fetal head stage | 30 | 0.43 | 0.83 | 2.5 | 0.69 | 0.63 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Milatović, S.; Krsman, A.; Baturan, B.; Dragutinović, Đ.; Ilić, Đ.; Stajić, D. Comparing Pre-Induction Ultrasound Parameters and the Bishop Score to Determine Whether Labor Induction Is Successful. Medicina 2024, 60, 1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60071127
Milatović S, Krsman A, Baturan B, Dragutinović Đ, Ilić Đ, Stajić D. Comparing Pre-Induction Ultrasound Parameters and the Bishop Score to Determine Whether Labor Induction Is Successful. Medicina. 2024; 60(7):1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60071127
Chicago/Turabian StyleMilatović, Stevan, Anita Krsman, Branislava Baturan, Đorđe Dragutinović, Đorđe Ilić, and Dragan Stajić. 2024. "Comparing Pre-Induction Ultrasound Parameters and the Bishop Score to Determine Whether Labor Induction Is Successful" Medicina 60, no. 7: 1127. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60071127