Comparing intrapartum ultrasound and clinical examination in the assessment of fetal head position in African women

Wiafe, Yaw A.; Whitehead, Bill; Venables, Heather; Dassah, Edward T.

doi:10.15557/jou.2019.0037

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to examine the agreement between intrapartum ultrasound and digital vaginal examination in assessing the occiput position in black African women who were in the first stage of labor and to evaluate the influence of ruptured membranes on this agreement. Material and method: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a teaching hospital in Ghana. Transabdominal ultrasound determination of the fetal head position was compared with digital vaginal examination of women in labor. The agreement between the two methods was examined with Cohen’s kappa statistics. Results: Altogether, 196 women in active labor were studied. The fetal head position could not be determined by digital vaginal examination in 62 cases (32%) while ultrasound could determine all. Moderate agreement (kappa = 0.4) was obtained in the 134 cases determined by both methods. Agreement on the occiput posterior position was very low (kappa = 0.1). Agreement on the occiput posterior position was not significantly different in ruptured versus intact membranes. Conclusion: This study shows poor agreement between ultrasound and digital VE on the occiput posterior position in black African women who were in the first stage of labor. Again, over 85% of fetal head positions that could not be determined by digital vaginal examination were occiput transverse and posterior positions. This confirms that digital vaginal examination has difficulty in detecting malpositions, with no significant influence of intact or ruptured membranes. Ultrasound is therefore more useful than digital vaginal examination whenever malposition is suspected in the first stage of labor.

References

Ponkey SE, Cohen AP, Heffner LJ, Lieberman E: Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 915–920.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O’Herlihy C: Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 1027–1031.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB: Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: a retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Maternal Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19: 563–568.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pearl ML, Roberts JM, Laros RK, Hurd WW: Vaginal delivery from the persistent occiput posterior position. Influence on maternal and neonatal morbidity. J Reprod Med 1993; 38: 955–961.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wiafe YA, Whitehead B, Venables H, Nakua EK: The effectiveness of intrapartum ultrasonography in assessing cervical dilatation, head station and position: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound 2016; 24: 222–232.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Handa VL, Lockhart ME, Fielding JR, Bradley CS, Brubaker L, Cundiff GW et al.: Racial differences in pelvic anatomy by magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 914–920.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoyte L, Thomas J, Foster RT, Shott S, Jakab M, Weidner AC: Racial differences in pelvic morphology among asymptomatic nulliparous women as seen on three-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 2035–2040.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Betti L, Manica A: Human variation in the shape of the birth canal is significant and geographically structured. Proc Biol Sci 2018; 285: 20181807.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas JE, Laros RK Jr, Caughey AB: Face presentation: predictors and delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 10–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ahmad A, Webb SS, Early B, Sitch A, Khan K, MacArthur C: Association between fetal position at onset of labor and mode of delivery: a prospective cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 176–182.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Barbera A, Eggebø TM, Mynbaev OA, Bochicchio M et al.: Occiput posterior position diagnosis: vaginal examination or intrapartum sonography? A clinical review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27: 520–526.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Souka AP, Haritos T, Basayiannis K, Noikokyri N, Antsaklis A: Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 59–63.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O: Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 258–263.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shetty J, Aahir V, Pandey D, Adiga P, Kamath A: Fetal head position during the first stage of labor: comparison between vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasound. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2014; 2014: 314617.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Choi SK, Park YG, Lee DH, Ko HS, Park IY, Shin JC: Sonographic assessment of fetal occiput position during labor for the prediction of labor dystocia and perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29: 3988–3992.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blanc-Petitjean P, Le Ray C, Lepleux F, De La Calle A, Dreyfus M, Chantry AA: Factors affecting rotation of occiput posterior position during the first stage of labor. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2018; 47: 119–125.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Comparing intrapartum ultrasound and clinical examination in the assessment of fetal head position in African women

Abstract

Paradigm

My account