Fetal head circumference, operative delivery, and fetal outcomes: a multi-ethnic population-based cohort study

Andrew Mujugira, Alfred Osoti, Ruth Deya, Stephen E Hawes, Amanda I Phipps, Andrew Mujugira, Alfred Osoti, Ruth Deya, Stephen E Hawes, Amanda I Phipps

Abstract

Background: Operative delivery procedures, such as primary cesarean section, vacuum-assisted, and forceps-assisted vaginal delivery increase maternal and fetal morbidity, and the cost of care. We evaluated whether large fetal head circumference (FHC) independently increases risk of such interventions, as well as fetal distress or low Apgar score, in anatomically normal infants.

Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using Washington State birth certificate data. We included singleton, term infants born to nulliparous mothers from 2003-2009. We compared mode of delivery and fetal outcomes in 10,750 large-FHC (37-41 cm) infants relative to 10,750 average-FHC (34 cm) infants, frequency matched by birth-year.

Results: Large-FHC infants were nearly twice as likely to be delivered by primary cesarean section as average-FHC infants (unadjusted relative risk [RR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77, 1.92). The RR for primary cesarean section associated with large-FHC was largest for mothers aged 19 years or less (RR 2.28; 95% CI: 1.99, 2.61), and smallest for mothers aged 35 years or greater (RR 1.51; 95% CI: 1.37, 1.66) [test of homogeneity, p < 0.001]. Large-FHC infants were at increased risk of vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery (RR 1.55; 95% CI: 1.43, 1.69), and forceps-assisted vaginal delivery (RR 1.61; 95% CI: 1.32, 1.97). There was no difference in risk of fetal distress (RR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.07) for large-FHC versus average-FHC infants. Risk estimates were unaffected by adjustment for potential confounders.

Conclusions: Nulliparous mothers of large-FHC infants are at increased risk of primary cesarean section, vacuum-assisted and forceps-assisted vaginal delivery relative to mothers of average-FHC infants. Maternal age modifies the association between FHC and primary cesarean section.

References

    1. Konje JC, Ladipo OA. Nutrition and obstructed labor. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72(1 Suppl):291S–297S.
    1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Kirmeyer S, Matthews TJ, Wilson EC. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011;60(1):1–14.
    1. Menacker F, Hamilton B. Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the united states. In., vol. No. 35. Atlanta: National Center for Health Statistics; 2010.
    1. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, Shah A, Campodonico L, Bataglia V, Faundes A. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet. 2006;367(9525):1819–1829. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704-7.
    1. Hospitalizations related to childbirth. .
    1. Bahl R, Strachan B, Murphy DJ. Pelvic floor morbidity at 3 years after instrumental delivery and cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor and the impact of a subsequent delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):789–794. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.601.
    1. Valsky DV, Lipschuetz M, Bord A, Eldar I, Messing B, Hochner-Celnikier D, Lavy Y, Cohen SM, Yagel S. Fetal head circumference and length of second stage of labor are risk factors for levator ani muscle injury, diagnosed by 3-dimensional transperineal ultrasound in primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(1):91. e91-97.
    1. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Contreras R, Nager CW, Luber KM. Parity, mode of delivery, and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1253–1260. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000218096.54169.34.
    1. Elvander C, Hogberg U, Ekeus C. The influence of fetal head circumference on labor outcome: a population-based register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(4):470–475. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01358.x.
    1. Kennelly MM, Anjum R, Lyons S, Burke G. Postpartum fetal head circumference and its influence on labour duration in nullipara. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;23(5):496–499. doi: 10.1080/0144361031000153701.
    1. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Danon D, Mashiach R, Meizner I, Ben-Haroush A. Sonographic estimation of fetal head circumference: how accurate are we? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(1):65–71. doi: 10.1002/uog.7760.
    1. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 326, December 2005. Inappropriate use of the terms fetal distress and birth asphyxia. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(6):1469–1470. doi: 10.1097/00006250-200512000-00056.
    1. Hankins GD, Speer M. Defining the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of neonatal encephalopathy and cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(3):628–636. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00574-X.
    1. Lin HC, Sheen TC, Tang CH, Kao S. Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a population-based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(12):1178–1183.
    1. Lieberman E, Lang JM, Cohen AP, Frigoletto FD Jr, Acker D, Rao R. The association of fetal sex with the rate of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(3):667–671. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70567-2.
    1. Kessner DMSJ, Kalk CE, Schlesinger ER. Infant death: an analysis by maternal risk and health care. In., edn. Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Scientists: Washington, DC; 1973.
    1. Kotelchuck M. An evaluation of the kessner adequacy of prenatal care index and a proposed adequacy of prenatal care utilization index. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(9):1414–1420. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.84.9.1414.
    1. Malabarey OT, Balayla J, Abenhaim HA. The effect of pelvic size on cesarean delivery rates: using adolescent maternal age as an unbiased proxy for pelvic size. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25(3):190–194. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2012.01.002.
    1. Volgyi E, Tylavsky FA, Xu L, Lu J, Wang Q, Alen M, Cheng S. Bone and body segment lengthening and widening: a 7-year follow-up study in pubertal girls. Bone. 2010;47(4):773–782. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2010.07.007.
    1. Leitch CR, Walker JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(6):621–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10176.x.
    1. Clark JF, Westney LS, Lawyer CJ. Adolescent pregnancy: a 25-year review. J Natl Med Assoc. 1987;79(4):377–380.
    1. Kozak LJ, Weeks JD. U.S. trends in obstetric procedures, 1990–2000. Birth. 2002;29(3):157–161. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2002.00182.x.
    1. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Nelson JC, Cardenas V, Gardella C, Easterling TR, Callaghan WM. Accuracy of reporting maternal in-hospital diagnoses and intrapartum procedures in Washington State linked birth records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2005;19(6):460–471. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2005.00682.x.
    1. Frost F, Starzyk P, George S, McLaughlin JF. Birth complication reporting: the effect of birth certificate design. Am J Public Health. 1984;74(5):505–506. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.74.5.505.
    1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Obstetric Practice. The Apgar Score. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1444–1447.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi