Transvaginal Ultrasound Versus Bishop Score in Predicting Labour Dystocia at Full-Term Nullipara Undergoing Labour Induction
,
Abstract
Objective: Precise assessment of cervical conditions before labor induction is crucial for predicting the success of normal vaginal delivery. The cervix primary condition has a significant value in determining the succession of induction of labour. Traditionally, assessment of cervix before induction has been based on a cervix digital examination using Bishop's scoring method.This study compares transvaginal ultrasonographic (TVS) cervical assessment with the traditional Bishop score in nulliparous women undergoing labor induction, aiming to evaluate their predictive abilities for labor dystocia.
Materials and methods: In a prospective observational study of 200 pregnant women at Al Hussein University Hospital between October 2022 and July 2023, cervical length, funneling, and posterior cervical angle were measured using transvaginal ultrasound. The Bishop score was recorded before induction. Statistical analyses, including Student's "t"-test and ROC curve, were conducted using SPSS.
Results: 68% delivered via normal vaginal delivery (NVD) and 32% via cesarean section (CS). The NVD group exhibited significantly higher Bishop scores (6.82±1.36 vs 3.70±0.94), lower cervical length (25.46±3.99 vs 37.34±2.09),and higher cervical angle (121.39±5.70 vs 89.01±6.09), than the CS group. ROC curve analysis revealed that a Bishop score ≥4.5 had 89% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity, a cervical angle ≥ 92.5 had 98.5% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity, and a cervical length ≥31.5 had 96.9% sensitivity and 97.1% specificity for predicting NVD.
Conclusion: The posterior cervical angle, alongside cervical length, proves to be a more sensitive indicator for predicting labor dystocia during induction compared to the traditional Bishop score.
2. Keepanasseril A, Suri V, Bagga R, Aggarwal N. Pre-induction sonographic assessment of the cervix in the prediction of successful induction of labour in nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;47(5):389-393.
3. Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(6):CD010762.
4. Timmons B, Akins M, Mahendroo M. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2010;21(6):353-361.
5. Read CP, Word RA, Ruscheinsky MA, Timmons BC, Mahendroo MS. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: molecular characterization of the softening phase in mice. Reproduction 2007;134(2):327-340.
6. Verhoeven CJ, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, van der Post JA, Mol BW. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42(5):500-508.
7. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2014;210(3):179-93.
8. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(5):568-573.
9. Kwasan S, Paisarntuntiwong R, Charoenchainont P. Cervical length measurement by transvaginal sonography in preterm pregnant women for prediction of preterm birth. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88(Suppl 2):S48-S55.
10. Kwon JY, Wie JH, Choi SK, Park S, Kim SM, Park IY. The degree of cervical length shortening as a predictor of successful or failed labor induction. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2021;60(3):503-508.
11. Eser A, Ozkaya E. Uterocervical angle: an ultrasound screening tool to predict satisfactory response to labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020;33(8):1295-1301.
12. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100(1):164-167.
13. Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Pérez-Medina T, Barbancho C, Troyano J, Bajo J. The labor induction: integrated clinical and sonographic variables that predict the outcome. J Perinatol 2007;27(1):4-8.
14. Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. Williams Obstetrics: 22nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Professional, 2005.
15. Yang SH, Roh CR, Kim JH. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor. J Ultrasound Med 2004;23(3):375-385.
16. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(6):623-628.
17. Strobel E, Sladkevicius P, Rovas L, De Smet F, Karlsson ED, Valentin L. Bishop score and ultrasound assessment of the cervix for prediction of time to onset of labor and time to delivery in prolonged pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28(3):298-305.
18. Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98(1):2-6.
19. Groeneveld YJ, Bohnen AM, Van Heusden AM. Cervical length measured by transvaginal ultrasonography versus Bishop score to predict successful labour induction in term pregnancies. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2010;2(3):187-193.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 18, No 1 (March 2024) | |
| Section | Original Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v18i1.15439 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Dystocia Ultrasonography Labor Induced | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
