Role of ultrasound on the labor ward

References

• Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M et al.; ISUOG-WHO Fetal Growth Study Group. Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 33(5), 599–608 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 33(3), 313–319 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramphul M, O’Brien Y, Murphy DJ. Strategies to enhance assessment of the fetal head position before instrumental delivery: a survey of obstetric practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.029 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, Rizzo N, Pelusi G, Pilu G. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 33(3), 331–336 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dückelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA 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. 35(2), 216–222 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalouhi G, Salomon LJ, Marelle P, Bernard J, Ville Y. Hygiene in endovaginal gynecologic and obstetrical ultrasound. J. Gynecol. Ostet. Biol. Reprod. 38(1), 43–50 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amis S, Ruddy M, Kibbler CC, Economides DL, MacLean AB. Assessment of condoms as probe covers for transvaginal sonography. J. Clin. Ultrasound 28(6), 295–298 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth JC, Rouse S, Spong C. Williams Obstetrics. McGraw Hill, NY, USA, 1385 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Heazell A, Raouf S, Bhattin N, Smewing S. A prospective study of the use of ultrasound scanning on the delivery suite. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 24, 269 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Sen A, Majumbar A. Is there any role of ultrasound in the labor ward and delivery suite? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 28, 586 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Lau WL, Cho LY, Leung WC. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound demonstration of face presentation during first stage of labor. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 37(12), 1868–1871 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vintzileos AM, Chavez MR, Kinzler WL. Use of ultrasound in the labor and delivery. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 23(6), 469–475 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reece EA, Gabrielli S, Degennaro N, Hobbins JC. Dating through pregnancy: a measure of growing up. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 44(7), 544–555 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE. Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a critical appraisal of its accuracy. Obstet. Gynecol. 111(1), 57–65 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noumi G, Collado-Khoury F, Bombard A, Julliard K, Weiner Z. Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192(5), 1407–1409 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platek DN, Divon MY, Anyaegbunam A, Merkatz IR. Intrapartum ultrasonographic estimates of fetal weight by the house staff. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 165(4 Pt 1), 842–845 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan SP, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Morrison JC, Kenney SP, Devoe LD. Limitations of clinical and sonographic estimates of birth weight: experience with 1034 parturients. Obstet. Gynecol. 91(1), 72–77 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnhard Y, Bar-Hava I, Divon MY. Accuracy of intrapartum estimates of fetal weight. Effect of oligohydramnios. J. Reprod. Med. 41(12), 907–910 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SY, Khandelwal M, Gaughan JP, Agar MH, Reece EA. Is the intrapartum biophysical profile useful? Obstet. Gynecol. 102(3), 471–476 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongprasert F, Jinpala S, Srisupandit K, Tongsong T. The rapid biophysical profile for early intrapartum fetal well-being assessment. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 95(1), 14–17 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan SP, Sanderson M, Hendrix NW, Magann EF, Devoe LD. Perinatal outcome and amniotic fluid index in the antepartum and intrapartum periods: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 181(6), 1473–1478 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses J, Doherty DA, Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC. A randomized clinical trial of the intrapartum assessment of amniotic fluid volume: amniotic fluid index versus the single deepest pocket technique. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 190(6), 1564–1569; discussion 1569 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer DM. Intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 30(2), 123–139 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 197(2), 186–192 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, Jeong EH, Jung HJ, Oh KJ. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 38(2), 198–204 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbst A, Nilsson C. Diagnosis of early preterm labour. BJOG 113(Suppl. 3), 60–67 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Kavvadias A, Makrydimas G. Transvaginal cervical length measurement for prediction of preterm birth in women with threatened preterm labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 35(1), 54–64 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 358(9289), 1203–1207 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R, Strachan B. A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 156(1), 41–45 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy D, Patel R, Verity L, Swingler R. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 110, 610–615 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• NICE. Intrapartum Care. Clinical Guideline 55. NICE, London, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Dietz HP, Lanzarone V, Simpson JM. Predicting operative delivery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 27(4), 409–415 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo L, Romero R. Sonographic evaluation in the second stage of labor to improve the assessment of labor progress and its outcome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 33(3), 253–258 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven CJ, Rückert ME, Opmeer BC, Pajkrt E, Mol BW. Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict mode of delivery: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 40(1), 9–13 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. In: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, USA (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Bahl R, Strachan B, Murphy D. Operative vaginal delivery. In: Greentop Guideline No. 26. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A et al. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192(3), 868–874 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer DM, Abulafia O. Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 21(5), 430–436 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kämena A, Tutschek B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 28(6), 753–760 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz HP, Lanzarone V. Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 25(2), 165–168 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W. A study of progress of labour using intrapartum translabial ultrasound, assessing head station, direction, and angle of descent. BJOG 118(1), 62–69 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Slowinski T et al. Relationship between fetal head station established using an open magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the angle of progression determined by transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 37(6), 712–716 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalache KD, Dückelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Cichon G, Dudenhausen JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the ‘angle of progression’ predict the mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 33(3), 326–330 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Contro E, Farina A, Nobile M, Pilu G. Three-dimensional ultrasound in monitoring progression of labor: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 36(4), 500–506 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KÅ, Eggebø TM. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 37(6), 702–708 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet. Gynecol. 96(5 Pt 1), 749–752 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O’Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 98(6), 1027–1031 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akmal S, Tsoi E, Kametas N, Howard R, Nicolaides KH. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 12(3), 172–177 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, Simone T, André D, René-Charles R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 123(2), 193–197 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 13(1), 59–63 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. 19(3), 258–263 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 19(3), 264–268 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs I, Tutschek B, Henrich W. Visualization of the fetal fontanels and skull sutures by three-dimensional translabial ultrasound during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 31(4), 484–486 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malvasi A, Stark M, Ghi T, Farine D, Guido M, Tinelli A. Intrapartum sonography for fetal head asynclitism and transverse position: sonographic signs and comparison of diagnostic performance between transvaginal and digital examination. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 25(5), 508–512 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahalka N, Sadan O, Malinger G et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography with digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position in the second stage of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 193(2), 381–386 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasi I, D’Amico R, Fenu V et al. Sonographic assessment of fetal spine and head position during the first and second stages of labor for the diagnosis of persistent occiput posterior position: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 35(2), 210–215 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozenberg P, Porcher R, Salomon LJ, Boirot F, Morin C, Ville Y. Comparison of the learning curves of digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position during labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 31(3), 332–337 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiser D, Schiff E, Lipitz S, Kayam Z, Avraham A, Achiron R. Determination of fetal occiput position by ultrasound during the second stage of labor. J. Matern. Fetal Med. 10(4), 283–286 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chou MR, Kreiser D, Taslimi MM, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 191(2), 521–524 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Hargreaves C, Nicolaides KH. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 21(5), 437–440 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong GY, Mok YM, Wong SF. Transabdominal ultrasound assessment of the fetal head and the accuracy of vacuum cup application. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 98(2), 120–123 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin Y, Wang CC, Lau TK, Rogers MS. Color ultrasonography: a useful technique in the identification of nuchal cord during labor. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 15(5), 413–417 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peregrine E, O’Brien P, Jauniaux E. Ultrasound detection of nuchal cord prior to labor induction and the risk of cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 25(2), 160–164 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray A, Murphy D. Vasa praevia: diagnosis and management. Obstetrician Gynaecologist 10(4), 217–223 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Baschat AA, Gembruch U. Ante- and intrapartum diagnosis of vasa praevia in singleton pregnancies by colour coded Doppler sonography. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 79(1), 19–25 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markham KB, O’Shaughnessy RW. Placental vasa previa. Lancet 377(9771), 1102 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina FS, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound in labor and delivery. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 27(2), 61–67 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar