DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20212318

Transvaginal ultrasound for cervical assessment versus digital vaginal examination during active phase of labour

Nermeen Mohamed Hefila, Hisham Adel Elfazari

Abstract


Background: Ultrasound is found to have many uses in obstetrics. As the transvaginal ultrasound is used to examine the cervix in non-pregnant cases, it’s also can be used in pregnant cases to detect any cervical changes early in pregnancy, in cases of cervical incompetence, or late in pregnancy in labour to detect progression of cervical changes. Vaginal birth occasionally requires urgent medical intervention to avoid harm to the labouring woman and her baby. Intrapartum ultrasound is a simple technique that improves the understanding of abnormal labour and provides a more scientific basis for assessing labour. In this study, two hundred pregnant women, full term, non-complicated, single tone, cephalic presentation, active stage of labour, attending El-Shatby Maternity University Hospital labour ward were recruited for this study.

Methods: Intrapartum transvaginal ultrasound is done by the obstetrician followed immediately by digital examination done by a second obstetrician in charge to avoid bias.

Results: The results revealed that comparison between mean cervical length measurements assessed by TVUS and digitally revealed statistically significant difference with p<0.001. Also, comparison between mean cervical diameter measurements assessed by TVUS and digitally reveals statistically significant difference with p<0.001.

Conclusions: The  TVUS is a suitable alternative to digital examiation  in assessing labour progress because it is well accepted, minimal-invasive, less painful and with minimal infectious risks and good tool for estimating labour progress.


Keywords


Intrapartum TVUS, Active labour assessment, Cervical internal OS

Full Text:

PDF

References


Iliescu D, Antsaklis P, Paulescu D, Comanescu A, Tudorache S, Antsaklis A, et al. Applications of ultrasound in prelabor and labor. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;6:257-69.

Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(4):805.

Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, Post JA, Pajkrt E, Opmeer BC, Mol BW. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):625-30.

Crane J, Hutchens D. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length to predict preterm birth in asymptomatic women at increased risk: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(5):579-87.

Chaudhury K, Ghosh M, Halder A, Senapati S, Chaudhury S. Is transabdominal ultrasound scanning of cervical measurement in mid-trimester pregnancy a useful alternative to transvaginal ultrasound scan?. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2013;14(4):225-9.

Roh HJ, Ji YI, Jung CH, Jeon GH, Chun S, Cho HJ. Comparison of cervical lengths using transabdominal and transvaginal sonography in midpregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(10):1721-8.

Duckelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Nonnenmacher A, Dudenhausen JW, et al. 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.

Berghella V, Palacio M, Ness A, Alfirevic Z, Nicolaides KH, Saccone G. Cervical length screening for prevention of preterm birth in singleton pregnancy with threatened preterm labor: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using individual patient-level data. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(3):322-9.

Pandipati S, Combs CA, Fishman A, Lee SY, Mallory K, Ianovich F. Prospective evaluation of a protocol for using transabdominal ultrasound to screen for short cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(1):99.

Hecht C, Englbrecht M, Rech J, Schmidt S, Araujo E, Engelke K, et al. Additive effect of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor on bone erosions in patients with RA. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(12):2151-6.

Lim BH, Mahmood TA, Smith NC, Beat I. A prospective comparative study of transvaginal ultrasonography and digital examination for cervical assessment in the third trimester of pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 1992;20(9):599-603.

Sonek JD, Iams JD, Blumenfeld M, Johnson F, Landon M, Gabbe S. Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;76(2):172-5.

Goldberg J, Newman RB, Rust PF. Interobserver reliability of digital and endovaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(4):853-8.

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):254-7.

Eggebo TM, Okland I, Heien C, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(3):325-31.

Zimerman AL, Maymon R, Maymon R, Weinraub Z, Herman A, Tobvin Y. Intrapartum measurement of cervical dilatation using translabial 3-dimensional ultrasonography. Correlation with digital examination and interobserver and intraobserver agreement assessment. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:1289-96.

Barbera AF, Imani F, Becker T, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. Anatomic relationship between the pubic symphysis and ischial spines and its clinical significance in the assessment of fetal head engagement and station during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(3):320-5.

Barbera AF, Imani F, Becker T, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. Anatomic relationship between the pubic symphysis and ischial spines and its clinical significance in the assessment of fetal head engagement and station during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(3):320-5.

Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W. A study of progress of labour using intrapartum translabial ultrasound, assessing head station, direction, and angle of descent. BJOG. 2011;118(1):62-9.