DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20174017

X-ray pelvimetry: prognosis of delivery by cephalous-pelvic confrontation in Cotonou

S. Adisso, N. Atrevy, E. L. Adisso, Mukanire ., R. X. Perrin, E. Alihonou

Abstract


Background: The mechanical dystocia constitutes one of the causes of maternal death during labour. Reducing the incidence of complications of dystocia means recognize the factors induce dystocia. That justifies X-ray pelvimetry and cephalic fetal ultrasonography to predict the outcome of labour. This survey aims at establishing the prognosis of labour by a cephalous-pelvic confrontation.

Methods: This study was realised at CUGO and HOMEL, reference maternity hospitals in Cotonou from 28th March to 4th August 2006. That was a prospective study. During prenatal visit, pregnant women who had pelvis abnormality were recruited after their consent after counselling about exploration of their pelvis and fetal cephalic diameters. Pregnant women in their ninth month underwent to X-ray pelvimetry and fetal biometric ultrasonography.

Results: During that study, 122 pregnant women in their ninth month were recruited. Favourable prognosis (36.89%): natural delivery 31.15%; (concordance rate is 84.44%). Uncertain prognosis (18.85%): caesarean section (10.66%), natural delivery (7.37%). Unfavourable prognosis (44.26%): 40.16% deliveries by caesarean section. Concordance rate is 90.74%.

Conclusions: The cephalous-pelvic confrontation is a reliable prognosis method. It is recommendable in our maternity hospitals to prevent complications of dystocia, a cause of maternal death.


Keywords


Cephalous-pelvic confrontation, Dystocia, X-ray pelvimetry

Full Text:

PDF

References


Thierry M. Obstetrical study of the pelvis: a historical overview. Verk K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 1955;57(3):199-228.

Anderson N. X-ray pelvimetric: helpful or harmful? J Fam Pract. 1983;17(3):405-12.

Lansac J, Berger C, Magnin G. Obstétrique pour le praticien. 2nd édition Paris SIMEP;1990:59-192.

Magnin P, Bremond A, Salomon B, Salussola JP, Felber M, Mamelle N. Diagram for the prognosis of cephalous-pelvic disproportions Application in 300 cases of pelvic contraction. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 1975;4(7):975-87.

Merger R, Levy J, Melchior J. Précis d’obstétrique. 6th éd. Paris Masson; 1995:14-367.

Dubois C, Duffour P, Quandalle F, Lanvin D, Levasseur M, Monnier JC. Breech presentation: management (304 cases). Contracept Fertil Sex. 1998;26(5):363-71.

Thoms H. Pelvimetry. Volume 1. New York Hoerper-harper;1956.

Magnin P. Obstetrical Radiodiagnosis Scientific Expansion. 2nd Ed. Paris;1975:185-308.

Cisse CT, Kokaina C, Ndiaye O, Moreau JC. Trial of labour in moderate pelvic dystocia at Dakar University Teaching Hospital. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2004;33(4):312-8.

Matulewicz S, Accigliaro G. Radiopelvimetric study of the normal pelvis of Congolese women (Thoms classification). J Gynecol Obstet. 1967;66:167-174.

N’Doma H. Contribution to the radiological study of the Zairian woman's pelvis. Pub Med Afr. 1990;104:17-21.

Mahmood TA, Campbell DM, Wilson AW. Maternal height, shoe size and outcome of labour in white primigravidas: a prospective anthropométric study. BMJ. 1988;297(6647):515-7

Schaal JP, Riethmuller D, Martin A, Lemouel A, Quéreux C, Maillet R. Conduct during childbirth work Encycl Med Chir Obstetrics. (Elsevier, Paris); 5-049-D-27;1998:35.

Langer B, Schlaeder G. What does the caesarean rate mean in France. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 1998;27(1):62-70.