Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2278-9046
Original Article

The Importance of Fetal Station in the First Stage of Labor

Sara I. Jones    *
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Chinonye S. Imo   *
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Amanda C. Zofkie 
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Alexandra S. Ragsdale
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Donald D. Mcintire
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
David B. Nelson
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to examine the relationship of fetal station in the first stage of labor to labor curves and cesarean delivery rates among women presenting in spontaneous labor.

Study Design Labor curves for patients with nonanomalous singletons who presented in spontaneous labor to our hospital's Obstetric Triage Unit with intact membranes from January 1, 2012, to August 31, 2016 were reviewed. Cervical exams and time of exam were obtained for each patient from presentation to triage until delivery. Station for each presentation and cervical dilation was estimated using a random effects model and the slope of cervical station change was calculated to estimate the change in dilation by hour. Perinatal outcomes, including cesarean delivery rates, were examined according to fetal station at initial presentation. Factors known to affect labor curves—epidural analgesia, infant birthweight, maternal habitus, and parity—were also examined.

Results There were 8,123 patients presented in spontaneous labor with intact membranes. For patients presenting at 6-cm dilation, the rate of change of labor was significantly different when identified to have a station greater than 0 (+1 and more caudad) when compared with those with −1 and more cephalad station (both p < 0.001). This relationship persisted when analyzed according to epidural analgesia, birthweight, maternal habitus, and parity. The frequency of cesarean delivery was significantly higher for women presenting in spontaneous labor with negative fetal station (p < 0.05). When stratified across all dilation (3–9 cm), this trend remained significant (p < 0.001).

Conclusion In the first stage of labor, advanced fetal station was significantly associated with differing rates of labor progression, and positive fetal station was significantly less likely to result in cesarean delivery. Physical examination, including station, remains a critical element in labor management.

Key Points

  • Fetal station is important in labor management.

  • Fetal station at initial exam is related to time to delivery.

  • Positive fetal station at initial exam is less likely to result in cesarean delivery.

Keywords

cervical exam - cesarean delivery - fetal station - labor curve - labor management - perinatal outcomes

Note

This study was presented at the 42nd Annual Pregnancy Meeting, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, held virtually January 31–February 5, 2022.


* Equal contribution.




Publication History

Received: 19 November 2022

Accepted: 26 February 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
29 February 2024

Article published online:
18 March 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Friedman EA. Classic pages in obstetrics and gynecology. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 132 (07) 822-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187 (04) 824-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetric care consensus no. 1. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 693-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Normal labor. In: Cunningham F, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM. eds. Williams Obstetrics, 26e. McGraw Hill; 2022
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Operative vaginal delivery. In: Yeomans ER, Hoffman BL, Gilstrap III LC, Cunningham F. eds. Cunningham and Gilstrap's Operative Obstetrics, 3e. McGraw Hill; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. False labor at term in singleton pregnancies: discharge after a standardized assessment and perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (01) 139-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hoffman MK, Vahratian A, Sciscione AC, Troendle JF, Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (05) 1029-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Satin AJ, Leveno KJ, Sherman ML, Brewster DS, Cunningham FG. High- versus low-dose oxytocin for labor stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80 (01) 111-116
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Worley KC, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The prognosis for spontaneous labor in women with uncomplicated term pregnancies: implications for cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (04) 812-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Albers LL, Schiff M, Gorwoda JG. The length of active labor in normal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (03) 355-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zhang J, Landy HJ, Ware Branch D. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (06) 1281-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Falzone S, Chauhan SP, Mobley JA, Berg TG, Sherline DM, Devoe LD. Unengaged vertex in nulliparous women in active labor. A risk factor for cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 1998; 43 (08) 676-680
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Roshanfekr D, Blakemore KJ, Lee J, Hueppchen NA, Witter FR. Station at onset of active labor in nulliparous patients and risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93 (03) 329-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Graseck A, Tuuli M, Roehl K, Odibo A, Macones G, Cahill A. Fetal descent in labor. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (03) 521-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Jones L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 7 (12) CD000331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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 (03) 868-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Buchmann E, Libhaber E. Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 101 (03) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hjartardóttir H, Lund SH, Benediktsdóttir S, Geirsson RT, Eggebø TM. Fetal descent in nulliparous women assessed by ultrasound: a longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (04) 378.e1-378.e15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nassr AA, Berghella V, Hessami K. et al. Intrapartum ultrasound measurement of angle of progression at the onset of the second stage of labor for prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery in term singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (02) 205-214.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Induction and augmentation of labor. In: Cunningham F, Leveno KJ, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Spong CY, Casey BM. eds. Williams Obstetrics, 26e. McGraw Hill; 2022
    Google Scholar