Reliability and Reproducibility of Analyzing 3D Transperineal Ultrasound Volumes Obtained in the First Phase of Labor - A Pilot Study

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability and reproducibility of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) in the initial phase of labor. As TPUS is a common method, it could supplement vaginal palpation and even replace it in certain situations. In addition, we used a 4-dimensional method for the assessment of cervical effacement.

Materials and Methods 54 women in labor were included and underwent TPUS. The resulting images from the acquired 4D volumes were evaluated after the examination for the first time and a second time after 21 days. The measured values were cervical length, dilatation and effacement, the angle of progression (AoP), and head-perineum distance.

Results 54 patients were examined. TPUS images were unable to be evaluated in 12 patients because of cervical dilatation of more than 5 cm or poor image quality. Thus, 42 measurements were included. The concordance correlation coefficients according to Lin are satisfactory overall, with one exception for cervical effacement. The accuracy component of cervical length (CCC_Lin: 0.93; accuracy: 1.00), dilatation (CCC_Lin: 0.93; accuracy: 1.00), and AoP (CCC_Lin: 0.87; accuracy: 1.00) is excellent and still high for the head-perineum distance (CCC_Lin: 0.89; accuracy: 0.96) and cervical effacement (CCC_Lin: 0.77; accuracy: 0.97).

Conclusion TPUS is a valuable noninvasive tool with good diagnostic accuracy for the AoP, cervical length, and dilatation. Our study provides support for the use of TPUS to complement a vaginal examination. It should not replace a digital examination but should serve as a suitable alternative method for monitoring labor progression in the future.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die Zuverlässigkeit und Reproduzierbarkeit des transperinealen Ultraschalls (TPUS) subpartu zu untersuchen. Als gängige Methode könnte diese die vaginale Palpation ergänzen und in bestimmten Situationen sogar ersetzen. Darüber hinaus haben wir eine 4-dimensionale Methode zur Beurteilung der Zervixreife eingesetzt.

Material und Methode Es wurden 54 Frauen subpartu eingeschlossen, die sich einem TPUS unterzogen. Das resultierende Ultraschallbild aus dem erfassten 4D-Volumen wurde nach der Untersuchung zum ersten Mal und ein zweites Mal nach 21 Tagen ausgewertet. Gemessen wurden die Cervixlänge, -Dilatation und Reife sowie der Progressionswinkel (AoP) und der Kopf-Perineum-Abstand.

Ergebnisse Es wurden 54 Frauen untersucht. 42 Messungen wurden in die Auswertung einbezogen (schlechte Bildqualität bzw. Muttermundöffnung > 5 cm bei 12 Patientinnen). Die Konkordanz-Korrelationskoeffizienten nach Lin sind mit Ausnahme für die Zervixreife insgesamt zufriedenstellend. Die accuracy (Genauigkeit) der Zervixlänge (CCC_Lin: 0,93; accuracy:1,00), der Dilatation (CCC_Lin: 0,93; accuracy: 1,00) und des AoP (CCC_Lin: 0,87; accuracy: 1,00) ist ausgezeichnet, für den Kopf-Perineum-Abstand (CCC_Lin: 0,89; accuracy: 0,96) und die Zervixreife (CCC_Lin: 0,77; accuracy: 0,97) adäquat.

Schlussfolgerung TPUS ist ein wertvolles nicht-invasives Instrument mit einer guten diagnostischen Genauigkeit in Bezug auf die Zervixlänge, -dilatation und den AoP. Unsere Studie unterstützt den Einsatz des Ultraschalls als Ergänzung zur vaginalen Untersuchung. In Zukunft könnte der TPUS eine geeignete alternative Methode zur Überwachung des Geburtsfortschritts sein.

Keywords

Bishop Score - reliability - reproducibility - transperineal ultrasound

Publication History

Received: 12 December 2021

Accepted after revision: 28 September 2022

Article published online:
19 January 2023

• References

• 1 BISHOP EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268
• 2 Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T. et al. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217: 69.e1-69.e10 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.009.
• 3 Eggebø TM, Økland I, Heien C. et al. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88: 325-331 DOI: 10.1080/00016340902730417.
• 4 Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A. et al. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 868-874 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.028.
• 5 Akmal S, Tsoi E, Kametas N. et al. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002; 12: 172-177 DOI: 10.1080/jmf.12.3.172.177.
• 6 Larscheid P, Maass N, Kennes LN. et al. Der transperineale Ultraschall zur Messung der Cervixlänge bei Schwangeren im Allgemeinen und im Besonderen bei Cervixinsuffizienz – Ein Vergleich des transabdominalen und transperinealen Verfahrens als Alternativen zum transvaginalen Verfahren. Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 59-64 DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1355723.
• 7 Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Chastang C. et al. 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 DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00549.x.
• 8 Dietz HP. Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part II: three-dimensional or volume imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 615-625 DOI: 10.1002/uog.1072.
• 9 Lewin D, Sadoul G, Sylvain-Leroy BS. L'échotomographie périnéale. Une nouvelle méthode de mesure objective du col. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1976; 5: 651-655
• 10 Najjari L, Hennemann J, Larscheid P. et al. Perineal ultrasound as a complement to POP-Q in the assessment of cystoceles. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 740925 DOI: 10.1155/2014/740925.
• 11 Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I. et al. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 199-204 DOI: 10.1002/uog.5360.
• 12 Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G. et al. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 313-319 DOI: 10.1002/uog.6329.
• 13 Dietz HP, Shek KL. Tomographic ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor: which levels matter most?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 698-703 DOI: 10.1002/uog.6403.
• 14 Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989; 45: 255-268
• 15 R Core Team 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria].. https://www.R-project.org/
• 16 Elghorori MRM, Hassan I, Dartey W. et al. Comparison between subjective and objective assessments of the cervix before induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26: 521-526 DOI: 10.1080/01443610600797459.
• 17 Vernet T, Rivaux G, Deruelle P. Les mesures échographiques de la longueur cervicale et de la hauteur de la présentation fœtale sont-elles prédictives de l'issue d'accouchement chez des patientes à terme ?. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2016; 44: 329-335 DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.04.009.
• 18 Khazardoost S, Ghotbizadeh Vahdani F, Latifi S. et al. Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements in predicting mode of delivery compared to bishop score: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016; 16: 330 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-1090-x.
• 19 Youssef A, Maroni E, Ragusa A. et al. Fetal head-symphysis distance: a simple and reliable ultrasound index of fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 419-424 DOI: 10.1002/uog.12335.
• 20 Ahn KH, Oh MJ. Intrapartum ultrasound: A useful method for evaluating labor progress and predicting operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2014; 57: 427-435 DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2014.57.6.427.
• 21 Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS. Imaging analysis of cervical elastography for prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32: 937-946 DOI: 10.7863/ultra.32.6.937.
• 22 Feltovich H, Hall TJ, Berghella V. Beyond cervical length: emerging technologies for assessing the pregnant cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 345-354 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.015.
• 23 Chaemsaithong P, Kwan AHW, Tse WT. et al. Factors that affect ultrasound-determined labor progress in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220: 592.e1-592.e15 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.236.
• 24 Chan YTV, Ng VKS, Yung WK. et al. Relationship between intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measurement of angle of progression and head-perineum distance with correlation to conventional clinical parameters of labor progress and time to delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28: 1476-1481 DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2014.958459.
• 25 Ciaciura-Jarno M, Cnota W, Wójtowicz D. et al. Evaluation of selected ultrasonography parameters in the second stage of labor in prediction mode of delivery. Ginekol Pol 2016; 87: 448-453 DOI: 10.5603/GP.2016.0024.