Predicting the Mode of Delivery by Angle of Progression (AOP) before the Onset of Labor by Transperineal Ultrasound in Nulliparous Women

Author(s): Priyanka Shankerappa Minajagi, Sujatha Bagepalli Srinivas*, Shripad Hebbar.

Journal Name: Current Women`s Health Reviews

Volume 16 , Issue 1 , 2020

Become EABM
Become Reviewer

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Background: Prediction of the mode of delivery is crucial for better labour outcome. Recent studies suggest that the angle of progression (AOP), measured using transperineal ultrasound, can substantially aid the assessment of fetal head descent during labor, thereby predicting the mode of delivery.

Objective: To assess the ability of the AOP measured by transperineal ultrasound to predict the mode of delivery in nulliparous women before the onset of labor.

Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at our hospital, of nulliparous women who had presented to the antenatal clinic at ≥ 38 weeks of gestation but not in labor. AOP was measured using transperineal ultrasonography and compared among the women having Caesarean section (CS) due to labor dystocia and vaginal delivery (VD). Various other confounding factors which increase the risk of caesarean section were analyzed.

Results: Among total 120 nulliparous women, the mean AOP was narrower in patients undergoing CS (n = 28) compared to those with VD (n = 92) (91.6 ± 6.1° vs. 100.7 ± 6.9°; P < 0.01). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that narrow AOP values (OR 3.66; P < 0.001; 95% CI 1.7- 14.5) and occiput-posterior fetal position (OR 1.63; P = 0.04; 95% CI 1.0-7.5) were the independent risk factors for CS. An AOP ≥ 96° (calculated from the ROC curve) was associated with VD in 95% (76/80) of women and an AOP < 96° was observed among 60% (24/40) of women who underwent CS.

Conclusion: Narrow AOP (< 96°) and occiput-posterior fetal position are at higher risk for CS due to labor dystocia. AOP measured at the antenatal period could accurately predict the mode of delivery, thereby modifying labor outcome.

Keywords: Angle of progression, ultrasound, caesarean delivery, vaginal delivery, nulliparous, occiput position, labor dystocia.

[1]
El-Garhy EL, Mohammed AH, Abd-El-Motaal AS, Esmail MNI. Prediction of delivery mode in pregnant women using angle of progression before onset of labor. Nat Sci 2018; 16: 1-4.
[2]
Levy R, Zaks S, Ben-Arie A, Perlman S, Hagay Z, Vaisbuch E. Can angle of progression in pregnant women before onset of labor predict mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40(3): 332-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.11195] [PMID: 22605649]
[3]
Mahajan N, Mustafa S, Tabassum S, Fareed P. Outcome of high fetal station in primi-gravida at term in labor. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2016; 5: 873-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20160602]
[4]
Youssef A, Maroni E, Ragusa A, et al. Fetal head-symphysis distance: a simple and reliable ultrasound index of fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41(4): 419-24.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.12335] [PMID: 23124698]
[5]
Takeda S, Takeda J, Koshiishi T, Makino S, Kinoshita K. Fetal station based on the trapezoidal plane and assessment of head descent during instrumental delivery. Hypertens Res Pregnancy 2014; 2: 65-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14390/jsshp.2.65]
[6]
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(2): 176-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.13189] [PMID: 23929533]
[7]
Dahlqvist K, Jonsson M. Neonatal outcomes of deliveries in occiput posterior position when delayed pushing is practiced: a cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17(1): 377-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1556-5] [PMID: 29137599]
[8]
Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KA, Eggebø TM. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37(6): 702-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.8951] [PMID: 21308837]
[9]
Antonio Sainz J, Borrero C, Aquise A, García-Mejido JA, Gutierrez L, Fernández-Palacín A. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound with pushing used to predict the difficulty in vacuum-assisted delivery of fetuses in non-occiput posterior position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29(20): 3400-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1130816] [PMID: 26653174]
[10]
Youssef A, Salsi G, Montaguti E, et al. Automated measurement of the angle of progression in labor: a feasibility and reliability study. Fetal Diagn Ther 2017; 41(4): 293-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000448947] [PMID: 27592216]
[11]
Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33(3): 313-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.6329] [PMID: 19248000]
[12]
Iliescu D, Tudorache S, Dragusin R, et al. The angle of progression at station 0 and in magnetic resonance and transperineal ultrasound assessment. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2015; 2015: 748327.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/748327] [PMID: 26483980]
[13]
Chaudhary S, Farrukh R, Dar A, Humayun S. Outcome of labour in nullipara at term with unengaged vertex. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009; 21(3): 131-4.
[PMID: 20929031]
[14]
Goyal A, Wadhwani R. Maternal outcome of primigravida patient with term pregnancy with engaged versus unengaged foetal head at onset of labour. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2019; 8: 3037-40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20193106]
[15]
Gillor M, Vaisbuch E, Zaks S, Barak O, Hagay Z, Levy R. Transperineal sonographic assessment of angle of progression as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49(2): 240-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.15931] [PMID: 27062415]
[16]
Dückelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SAM, et al. Measurement of fetal head descent using the ‘angle of progression’ on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35(2): 216-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.7521] [PMID: 20069668]
[17]
Perlman S, Kivilevitch Z, Moran O, et al. Correlation between clinical fetal head station and sonographic angle of progression during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31(21): 2905-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1359533] [PMID: 28738718]
[18]
Malvasi A, Tinelli A, Barbera A, et al. Occiput posterior position diagnosis: vaginal examination or intrapartum sonography? A clinical review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27(5): 520-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.825598] [PMID: 23865738]
[19]
Eggebø TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KA, Lindtjørn E, Lees CC. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: a two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43(2): 195-201.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.13210] [PMID: 24105705]


Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 16
ISSUE: 1
Year: 2020
Page: [39 - 45]
Pages: 7
DOI: 10.2174/1573404815666191113153204
Price: $65

Article Metrics

PDF: 17
HTML: 4
EPUB: 1
PRC: 1