FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2219353554> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2219353554 endingPage "59" @default.
• W2219353554 startingPage "53" @default.
• W2219353554 abstract "Ultrasound in labour (intrapartum ultrasound) has come to the fore in the last decade stemming from both an increased desire for a reliable method of labour assessment coupled with increased availability of ultrasound on the delivery suite. The use of ultrasound in the delivery suite currently is predominantly for presentation, amniotic fluid and fetal heart assessment, but there is a growing acknowledgement that ultrasound parameters could be used in assessing the progress of labour, and potentially in predicting labour outcome.1 The need for an objective method of assessing labour was first recognised as early as 1977 with the first known publication on intrapartum scanning.2 A more comprehensive review of intrapartum ultrasound, incorporating some concepts that are standard in contemporary practice was described in a Russian PhD thesis from the mid-1990s.3 There is the need, if not an alternative, then at least an adjunctive to digital vaginal examinations (VE). Digital VEs are associated with ascending infection to the fetus,4 chorioamnionitis5 and endometritis as well as reduced time to delivery in preterm labour.5 The examination itself may also be an uncomfortable experience for the labouring woman.6 In some circumstances, digital vaginal examinations (VEs) are contraindicated, such as Placenta Praevia or Preterm Prelabour Rupture Of Membranes (PPROM). For some women with a fear of childbirth, previous sexual trauma or vaginismus, digital VEs are especially traumatic and for these women special arrangements are usually made to avoid examination except where absolutely necessary. Irrespective of these concerns, digital VE is a notoriously subjective technique and agreement between observers is frequently poor.7,8 Several studies have assessed the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound in comparison with digital VE in determining fetal head position. These have concluded that ultrasound is superior to digital VE in identifying the correct fetal head position.9–12 However, a recent large randomised controlled trial has shown no difference in obstetric or neonatal morbidity despite demonstrating increased accuracy of fetal position with ultrasound in the second stage of labour when used in assisted vaginal delivery.13 In addition, in a recent large randomised study Popowski, et al. have shown increased obstetric intervention in the group where ultrasound was used in addition to vaginal examinations.14 A novel non-invasive technique using standard transabdominal probes has been developed where an ultrasound transducer encased in a clean cover is placed in either transverse or sagittal plane on the mother's perineum (Figure 1) but not in the vagina.15–17 Assessments of the descent of the presenting fetal part18,19 and cervical dilatation20(Figure 2) can be made within 1–2 minutes and without exerting undue pressure. Such a technique has the potential to reduce the frequency of intrusive internal examinations and associated infection and could be useful in allowing the assessment of women in whom digital VE is traumatic or contra-indicated. Transperineal Sagittal and Transverse application of 2D transducer.20 The sagittal scan is used to obtain views of the maternal symphysis pubis and fetal skull. The transducer may be rotated 180 degrees (transverse application) in order to visualise the cervix and head-perineum distance. Cervical dilatation assessed by 2D transperineal ultrasound during labour.20 The cervical dilatation is clearly visible at the centre with the vaginal wall hypoechogenic laterally to the cervix. At the top of the picture is the perineum where the transperineal probe is placed. However, similar to digital VEs, cervical dilatation is easier to assess at cervical dilatation of less than 9 cm and with rupture of membranes. Nonetheless it is a technique well tolerated by women21–23 and caregivers.24 The conventional assessment of head engagement and station in relation to the pelvic brim and the ischial spines respectively is subject to great intra-observer variability and the presence of caput and moulding25 makes this even more difficult. Thus, much interest in the use of intrapartum ultrasound has centered around head descent. Initial studies focused on Angle of Progression (AoP) in labour15,18,26 in the prediction of the likelihood of spontaneous vaginal delivery. With the probe placed in the sagittal plane, a line is drawn between the tangent on the deepest bony part of the fetal head together with the long axis of the pubic symphysis, this tangent defining the ‘angle of descent’ or ‘angle of progression’, more commonly known as the AoP. This is a difficult measurement to obtain at very high and very low stations and should ideally be restricted to the late first and early second stages of labour. Eggebo, et al. devised a simple method of assessing head descent initially in a subset of women with prelabour rupture of membranes27 using a novel parameter that he called the Head-Perineum Distance (HPD), this being the shortest distance from the outer bony limit of the fetal skull to the skin surface of the perineum (Figure 3). The HPD was then replicated in a group of 110 women in prolonged labour28 and found to have a high degree of correlation with AoP in the assessment of head station, though with large confidence intervals. Head-perineum distance measured as the outer bony limit of the fetal skull and the perineum. Printed with permission.28 Head-Symphysis Distance (HSD) has recently been described as another ultrasound marker to assess head descent. It is measured as the distance between the lower edge of the pubic symphysis and the nearest point of the fetal skull along the infrapubic line.29 It has since been shown that all these parameters for head descent are comparable1 (Table 1) but HPD is now emerging as the preferred method for assessment due to its simplicity of use and reproducibility even at high stations and both stages of labour. Using the transperineal scanning method, the identification of caput has been demonstrated by obtaining a sagittal view of the fetal skull.15 In 122 women, Hassan found an association between digital assessment of caput and ultrasound assessment of caput (Figure 4).30 Additionally, there was a relationship between ultrasound measured caput and the likelihood of vaginal delivery. Caput succedaneum obtained on the sagittal view of the fetal skull.30 Emergency Caesarean delivery rates are rising31 and the primary method of fetal monitoring, the cardiotocograph, is acknowledged to have limitations in predicting perinatal adverse outcome.32 There is clearly a need to better predict emergency Caesarean deliveries for adequate resource provision and reduction of intra-partum events causing hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Fetal Doppler examination demonstrating cerebral redistribution (low cerebro-umbilical [C/U: MCA/PI] ratio) may predict emergency Caesarean deliveries.33 Cerebral redistribution is a marker for hypoxia and there is currently controversy over whether it is physiological34 or pathological. In either case it is logically consistent to consider that a fetus that is relatively hypoxic at the start of labour is more likely to require emergency delivery due to hypoxia and abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring. Small prospective studies35,36 have been carried out demonstrating that although technically feasible, there is significant operator variation in ductus venosus waveform patterns as well as differences during and in between contractions in labour. The authors37 conclude that although perinatal Doppler examination of the DV is possible; it is time-consuming, technically not always possible and requires experience. In difficult cases they recommend ‘off-line’ analysis of recorded patterns. Without a clear protocol on its use and role in prediction of perinatal events, the routine use of DV Doppler on the delivery unit is currently neither recommended nor feasible. 3D has been compared to 2D in various studies and found to be comparable19,38 in assessing fetal head descent in the first stage of labour. There are several advantages of 3D versus 2D image acquisition including standardisation of measurements, the possibility of storing volumes in order to perform later analyses, even in planes other than that used for acquisition and multiplanar alignment. The need for a larger, more expensive probe and specialist training make its use unwieldy on the delivery suite. However, 3D transperineal images can be used to identify mal-presentation39 and thus improve the counselling of labouring women and their partners with a visual ultrasound image (Figure 5). Face presentation diagnosed on 3D ultrasound. Printed with permission.39 In 1954, Friedman first described the use of standardised curves40 in the management of labour. Philpott, et al.41 in 1972 first brought the concept of the partogram into clinical practice. However, a Cochrane review42 in 2009 concluded that its use made no overall difference to obstetric and neonatal morbidity and thus the routine use of the partogram in standard labour management could not be advocated. Hassan43 developed the concept of a sonopartogram (Figure 6), an ultrasound based partogram, as an objective tool for the prediction of labour based on ultrasound. Subsequently, combining various ultrasound parameters of the progress of labour including Head-Perineum Distance ≤ 40 mm44 and Caput< 10 mm30 a ‘proof of principle’ predictive model for vaginal birth in nulliparous labour has been constructed.45 The Sonopartogram.43 Ultrasound in the delivery room is nowadays ubiquitous but the use of this technology has both its proponents and opponents. A major concern is that advances in intrapartum ultrasound will mean that the art of Obstetrics is lost as over-reliance on technology develops. Certainly without large prospective studies on the subject, the evidence for routine use of transperineal ultrasound remains under scrutiny.46 As prediction models based on intrapartum ultrasound parameters are developed,44,45,47 real-time assessment of labour progress is likely to enhance the objectivity of recording the progress of labour, making it a future tool in active labour.48 This technology in both the developed and developing worlds could provide information that would allow better planning both for place and mode of delivery thus improving both safety and choice for women. Author's contribution: Sana Usman was responsible for writing and submitting the manuscript, Christoph Lees for reviewing and editing the paper. Funding Source: Christoph Lees is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. The Helen Lawson Grant, funded by the British Medical Association, has funded Miss Sana Usman for a study on the acceptability and feasibility of transperineal ultrasound. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the BMA or the Department of Health." @default.
• W2219353554 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2219353554 creator A5034799127 @default.
• W2219353554 creator A5053079902 @default.
• W2219353554 date "2015-05-01" @default.
• W2219353554 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W2219353554 title "Benefits and pitfalls of the use of intrapartum ultrasound" @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1643482139 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1718338880 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1811371672 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1832675680 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1864798302 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1901309303 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1913434091 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1966145595 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1985895415 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1991185252 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W1992463966 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2003707315 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2009103168 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2009456537 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2020783678 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2025140526 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2038388328 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2042569172 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2048725876 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2050121182 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2052395824 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2053647939 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2054477725 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2055654278 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2055672241 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2056337941 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2069488330 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2082850954 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2088620381 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2089385909 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2089652625 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2093678952 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2098020556 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2108668722 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2113032136 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2121204327 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2123914755 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2125165030 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2130784687 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2137437933 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2146112586 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2163737651 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2201852956 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2399737771 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W2419006058 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W4238847929 @default.
• W2219353554 cites W4253882938 @default.
• W2219353554 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2205-0140.2015.tb00042.x" @default.
• W2219353554 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5024966" @default.
• W2219353554 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28191241" @default.
• W2219353554 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2219353554 type Work @default.
• W2219353554 sameAs 2219353554 @default.
• W2219353554 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2219353554 countsByYear W22193535542018 @default.
• W2219353554 countsByYear W22193535542019 @default.
• W2219353554 countsByYear W22193535542022 @default.
• W2219353554 countsByYear W22193535542023 @default.
• W2219353554 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2219353554 hasAuthorship W2219353554A5034799127 @default.
• W2219353554 hasAuthorship W2219353554A5053079902 @default.
• W2219353554 hasBestOaLocation W22193535541 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConcept C143753070 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConceptScore W2219353554C126838900 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConceptScore W2219353554C131872663 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConceptScore W2219353554C143753070 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConceptScore W2219353554C177713679 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConceptScore W2219353554C19527891 @default.
• W2219353554 hasConceptScore W2219353554C71924100 @default.
• W2219353554 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2219353554 hasLocation W22193535541 @default.
• W2219353554 hasLocation W22193535542 @default.
• W2219353554 hasLocation W22193535543 @default.
• W2219353554 hasLocation W22193535544 @default.
• W2219353554 hasOpenAccess W2219353554 @default.
• W2219353554 hasPrimaryLocation W22193535541 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W137918050 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W1750272988 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W1989008638 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W1997176875 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W2013133633 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W2373416058 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W3046949741 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W35195935 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W4386015189 @default.
• W2219353554 hasRelatedWork W55699356 @default.

• next