Transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound vs routine care before instrumental vaginal delivery - A randomized controlled trial

Joana G Barros, Maria Afonso, Ana T Martins, Ana I Carita, Nuno Clode, Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, Luís M Graça, Joana G Barros, Maria Afonso, Ana T Martins, Ana I Carita, Nuno Clode, Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, Luís M Graça

Abstract

Introduction: The role of intrapartum ultrasound as an ancillary method to instrumental vaginal delivery is yet to be determined. This study aimed to compare the use of transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound with routine clinical care before performing an instrumental vaginal delivery, regarding the incidence of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Material and methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted between October 2016 and March 2019 in two tertiary care maternity hospitals in Lisbon, Portugal. Women at term, with full cervical dilatation, singleton fetuses in cephalic presentation, and with an established indication for instrumental vaginal delivery, were approached for enrollment. After informed consent was obtained, randomization into one of two groups was carried out. In the experimental arm, women underwent transabdominal ultrasound for determination of the fetal head position and transperineal ultrasound for evaluation of the angle of progression, before instrumental vaginal delivery. In the control arm, no ultrasound was carried out before instrumental vaginal delivery. Primary outcomes were composite measures of maternal and neonatal morbidity. Composite maternal morbidity consisted of severe postpartum hemorrhage, perineal trauma, and prolonged hospital stay. Composite neonatal morbidity consisted of low 5-minute Apgar score, umbilical artery metabolic acidosis, birth trauma, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Results: A total of 222 women were enrolled (113 in the experimental arm and 109 in the control arm). No significant differences between the two arms were found in composite measures of maternal (23.9% in the experimental group vs 22.9% in the control group, odds ratio 1.055, 95% CI 0.567-1.964) or neonatal morbidity (9.7% in the experimental group vs 6.4% in the control group, odds ratio 1.571, 95% CI 0.586-4.215), nor in any of the individual outcomes.

Conclusions: In this small randomized controlled trial that was stopped for futility before reaching the required sample size, transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound performed just before instrumental vaginal delivery did not reduce the incidence of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, when compared with routine clinical care.

Keywords: delivery; morbidity; neonatology; pregnancy; ultrasound.

© 2020 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

REFERENCES

    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:179-193.
    1. Yeomans ER. Operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:645-653.
    1. O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD005455.
    1. Demissie K, Rhoads GG, Smulian JC, et al. Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2004;329:24-29.
    1. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labor: a cohort study. Lancet. 2001;358:1203-1207.
    1. Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R, Strachan B. A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156:41-45.
    1. Vitner D, Bleicher I, Levy E, et al. Differences in outcomes between cesarean section in the second versus the first stages of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32:2539-2542.
    1. Ramphul M. "Strategies to increase the accuracy and safety of OVD" (Clinical assessment skills and role of ultrasound, simulation training and new technologies to enhance instrument application). Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;56:35-46.
    1. Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, Simone T, Andre D, Rene-Charles R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123:193-197.
    1. Tutschek B, Torkildsen EA, Eggebo TM. Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:425-429.
    1. Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Barbera AF, et al. Occiput posterior position diagnosis: vaginal examination or intrapartum sonography? A clinical review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27:520-526.
    1. Youssef A, Ghi T, Pilu G. How to perform ultrasound in labor: assessment of fetal occiput position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:476-478.
    1. 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;118:62-69.
    1. Ghi T, Dall'Asta A, Masturzo B, et al. Randomised Italian Sonography for occiput POSition Trial Ante vacuum (R.I.S.POS.T.A.). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52:699-705.
    1. Ramphul M, Ooi PV, Burke G, et al. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG. 2014;121:1029-1038.
    1. Kalache KD, Duckelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Cichon G, Dudenhausen JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the 'angle of progression' predict the mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:326-330.
    1. 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-e10.
    1. Chan VYT, Lau WL, So MKP, Leung WC. Measuring angle of progression by transperineal ultrasonography to predict successful instrumental and cesarean deliveries during prolonged second stage of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;144:192-198.
    1. Sainz JA, Garcia-Mejido JA, Aquise A, Borrero C, Bonomi MJ, Fernandez-Palacin A. A simple model to predict the complicated operative vaginal deliveries using vacuum or forceps. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(193):e1-e12.
    1. Cuerva MJ, Bamberg C, Tobias P, Gil MM, De La Calle M, Bartha JL. Use of intrapartum ultrasound in the prediction of complicated operative forceps delivery of fetuses in non-occiput posterior position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:687-692.
    1. Popowski T, Porcher R, Fort J, Javoise S, Rozenberg P. Influence of ultrasound determination of fetal head position on mode of delivery: a pragmatic randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:520-525.
    1. Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong CY, Chandraharan E, FIGO Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: cardiotocography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131:13-24.
    1. Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:313-319.
    1. Barata S, Cardoso E, Ferreira Santo S, Clode N, Mendes GL. Maternal and neonatal immediate effects of sequential delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:981-983.
    1. Sainz JA, Borrero C, Fernandez-Palacin A, et al. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound as a predictor of instrumentation difficulty with vacuum-assisted delivery in primiparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28:2041-2047.
    1. Sainz JA, Borrero C, Aquise A, Serrano R, Gutierrez L, Fernandez-Palacin A. Utility of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to predict cases of failure in vacuum extraction attempt and need of cesarean section to complete delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29:1348-1352.
    1. Duckelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Bamberg C, Dudenhausen JW, Kalache KD. Impact of intrapartal ultrasound to assess fetal head position and station on the type of obstetrical interventions at full cervical dilatation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:484-488.
    1. Dall'Asta A, Angeli L, Masturzo B, et al. Prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery in nulliparous women with a prolonged second stage of labor: the value of intrapartum ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(642):e1-e13.
    1. Eggebo TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KA, Lindtjorn E, Lees CC. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: a two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:195-201.
    1. Ramphul M, Kennelly MM, Burke G, Murphy DJ. Risk factors and morbidity associated with suboptimal instrument placement at instrumental delivery: observational study nested within the Instrumental Delivery & Ultrasound randomised controlled trial ISRCTN 72230496. BJOG. 2015;122:558-563.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner