Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Ultrasound in Obstet...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Article . 2024 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Biblos-e Archivo
Article . 2024
Data sources: Biblos-e Archivo
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
DDFV
Article . 2024
License: CC BY NC ND
Data sources: DDFV
versions View all 5 versions
addClaim

Implementation of sonopartogram: multicenter feasibility study

Authors: N. M. W. Lee; S. L. Lau; Y. K. Yeung; C. P. H. Chiu; F. Liu; Y. Y. Lau; A. M. Fidalgo; +5 Authors

Implementation of sonopartogram: multicenter feasibility study

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjectivesWell‐established clinical practice for assessing progress in labor involves routine abdominal palpation and vaginal examination (VE). However, VE is subjective, poorly reproducible and painful for most women. In this study, our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of systematically integrating transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal position, parasagittal angle of progression (psAOP), head–perineum distance (HPD) and sonographic cervical dilatation (SCD) to monitor the progress of labor in women undergoing induction of labor (IOL). We also aimed to determine if ultrasound can reduce women's pain during such examinations.MethodsWomen were recruited as they presented for IOL in three maternity units. Ultrasound assessments were performed in 100 women between 37 + 0 and 41 + 6 weeks' gestation. A baseline combined transabdominal and transperineal scan was performed, including assessment of fetal biometry, umbilical artery and fetal middle cerebral artery Doppler, amniotic fluid index, fetal spine and occiput positions, psAOP, HPD, SCD and cervical length. Intrapartum scans were performed instead of VE, unless there was a clinical indication to perform a VE, according to protocol. Participants were asked to indicate their level of pain by verbally giving a pain score between 0 and 10 (with 0 representing no pain) during assessment. Repeated measures data were analyzed using mixed‐effect models to identify significant factors that affected the relationship between psAOP, HPD, SCD and mode of delivery.ResultsA total of 100 women were included in the study. Of these, 20% delivered by Cesarean section, 65% vaginally and 15% by instrumental delivery. There were no adverse fetal or maternal outcomes. A total of 223 intrapartum ultrasound scans were performed in 87 participants (13 women delivered before intrapartum ultrasound was performed), with a median of two scans per participant (interquartile range (IQR), 1–3). Of these, 76 women underwent a total of 151 VEs with a median of one VE per participant (IQR, 0–2), with no significant difference between vaginal‐ or Cesarean‐delivery groups. After excluding those with epidural anesthesia during examination, the median pain score for intrapartum scans was 0 (IQR, 0–1) and for VE it was 3 (IQR, 0–6). Cesarean delivery was significantly associated with a slower rate of change in psAOP, HPD and SCD.ConclusionsComprehensive transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound assessment can be used to assess progress in labor and can reduce the level of pain experienced during examination. Ultrasound assessment may be able to replace some transabdominal and vaginal examinations during labor. © 2024 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Country
Spain
Keywords

Adult, head–perineum distance, Medicina, cervical dilatation, Perineum, fetal head station, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Labor Presentation, Pregnancy, angle of progression, Humans, Labor, Induced, yes, AOP, sonographic cervical dilation, Labor, Obstetric, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology, caput succedaneum, Obstetrics and Gynecology, transperineal ultrasound, SCD, parasagittal angle of progression, Reproductive Medicine, Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging, HPD, Feasibility Studies, Female, Yes, Labor Stage, First, feasibility

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    5
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
5
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
Green
hybrid