DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20212172

Study of pre induction transvaginal ultra-sonographic cervical length and its comparison with bishop score in predicting successful labor induction

Santosh Khajotia, Madhuri Sharma, Mool Chand Khichar, Manoj Gupta, Kavita Choudhary

Abstract


Background: Induction of labor means initiation of uterine contraction, after period of viability by any method (medical, surgical or combined) before spontaneous onset of labor for the purpose of vaginal delivery. The condition of cervix or favorability is important for successful labor induction. Assessment of cervix has been used as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery. Induction of labor carried out in approximately 20% of all pregnancies. Aim and objectives of the current study were to compare the predictive value of trans-vaginal ultra-sonographic measurement of cervical length versus Bishop score prior to induction of labor in predicting the mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcome.

Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Sardar Patel medical college and associated group of hospitals, Bikaner between February to November 2020. Study group included 100 pregnant women in which induction of labor was performed at 37-42 weeks of gestation.

Results: Bishop Score appears to be a better predictor than the cervical length with sensitivity of 1.00 and a specificity of 0.12 compared to 0.52 and 1.00 respectively. In the receiver operating characteristic curves, the cut-off point for the prediction of successful induction taken was 2.6 cm cervical length and >4 for the bishop score.

Conclusions: TVS cervical length could be used as alternative to Bishop score for prediction of successful labor induction in the sitting where the appropriate equipment and expertise are available. Bishop score and TVS cervical length both are good predictors of successful induction of labor.

 


Keywords


Cervical length, TVS, USG, Bishop score

Full Text:

PDF

References


Induction of labor., in evidence based clinical guideline number 9. Available at: https://www.nice. org.uk/guidance/cg70/evidence/cg70-induction-of-labour-full-guideline2. Accessed on 20 January 2021.

Cole RA, Howie PW, Magnaughton MC. Elective induction of labor. A randomized prospective trial. Lancet. 1975;1:767-70.

Sue-A-Quan AK, Hannah M E, Cohen M, Foster G A. Effect of labor induction on rates of still birth and Caesarean Section in post term pregnancies. Can Med Assoc J. 1999;160(8):1145-9.

Sande HA, Tuveng J, Fontelien TA. Prospective randomized study of induction of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1983;21:333-6

Rageth JC, Kernen B, Saurenmann E, Unger C. Premature contractions: possible influence of sonographic measurement of cervical length on clinical management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(3):183-7.

Andersen HF, Nugent CE, Wanty SD, Hayashi RH. Prediction of risk of preterm delivery by ultra-sonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163(3):859-67.

Anderson HF. Transvaginal and trasabdominal Ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 1991;19:77-83.

Burger M, Weber-Rossler T, Willmann M. Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: an inter observer study and new standards to improve the inter observer variability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9:188-93.

Keirse MJNC, Chalmers I. Methods for inducing labor. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, eds. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1989: 1057-79.

Shaala S, Darwish E, Anwar M. Cervical prostaglandin injection a novel method of administration for ripening the cervix and induction of labour. Int J Gynecol Obstetr. 1989;30:221-3.

Lo J, Alexander J, McIntire D. Ruptured membranes at term: randomized, double blind trial of oral misoprostol for labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:685-9.

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(3):254-25.

Cunningham L, Bloom D, Hoffman CS. Induction and augmentation of labor. 25th ed. New York: MC Graw- Hill; 2001:503-15.

Ware V, Raynor D. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182: 1030- 2.

Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Caesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(5):568-73.

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(2):192-6.

Won YB, Han SW, Kim EH. Clinical factors and ultrasound parameters to predict successful vaginal delivery following labour induction. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;40(3):360-366.

Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstst Gynecol. 1996;88:990-2.

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(1):51-57.

Raynelda F, Lukas E, Qadar S, Chalid MT. Comparison of Bishop score and cervical length measurement through transvaginal ultrasound as prediction against labor induction. Asian Pacific J Reproduct. 2018;7:280-4.