Intra and interobserver variability of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measurements with contraction and pushing

References

• ACOG practice bulletin. 2007. Bulletin number 17, June 2000. Operative vaginal delivery. Washington (DC): Compendium of selected publications, ACOG.
   Google Scholar
• Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. 2009. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 33:313–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartko JJ. 1966. The interclass correlation coefficient a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports 19:3–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird GC. 1976. The importance of flexion in vacuum extractor delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 83:194–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 8:1.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. 2003. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 22:85–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick LM, Pemberton PJ, Kurinczuk JJ. 1996. Neonatal subgaleal haematoma: associated risk factors, complications and outcome. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 32:228–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contag SA, Clifton RG, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, et al. 2010. Neonatal outcomes and operative vaginal delivery versus cesarean delivery. American Journal of Perinatology Perinatol 27:493–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuerva M, Bamberg C, Tobias P, Gil M, De la Calle M, Bartha JL. 2014. Intrapartum ultrasound, a predictive method for complicated operative forceps delivery in non-occiput posterior deliveries. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 43:687–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. 2001. Mechanisms of normal labor. In: Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, Hankins GDV, Clark SL, editors. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill. p. 291–307.
   Google Scholar
• Dietz HP, Lanzarone V. 2005. Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 25:165–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duckelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Nonnenmacher A, Dudenhausen JW, et al. 2010. 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 in Obstetrics & Gynecology 35:216–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, Dittmar A, Gaucherand P, Cucherat M, et al. 2005. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 192:868–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eason E, Labrecque M, Wells G, Feldman P. 2000. Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstetrics and Gynecology 95:464–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebo TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Okland I, Romundstad P, et al. 2006. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 27:387–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, Rizzo N, Pelusi G, Pilu G. 2009. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage Second stage fetal head descent and mode of delivery. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 33:331–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Youssef A, Maroni E, Arcangeli T, De Musso F, Bellussi F, et al. 2013. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal head progression in active second stage of labor and mode of delivery. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 41:430–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilboa Y, Kivilevitch Z, Spira M, Kedem A, Katorza E, Moran, et al. 2013. Head progression distance in prolonged second stage of labor: relationship with mode of delivery and fetal head station. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 41:436–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kamena A, Tutschek B. 2006. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 28:753–760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johanson RB, Menon BKV. 2010. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10:CD000224.
   Google Scholar
• Kalache KD, Duckelmann AM, Michaelis SA, Lange J, Cichon G, Dudenhausen JW. 2009. 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 in Obstetrics & Gynecology 33:326–330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau WL, Leung WC, Chin R. 2009. What is the best transperineal ultrasound parameter for predicting success of vacuum extraction? Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 33:735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majoko F, Gardener G. 2012. Trial of instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted births. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10:CD005545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mola GD, Amoa AB, Edilyong J. 2002. Factors associated with success or failure in trials of vacuum extraction. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 42:35–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, Puertas A, Nicolaides KH. 2010. What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 36:493–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler, Patel R. 2001. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancent 13:1203–1207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sainz JA, Borrero C, Fernández-Palacín A, Aquise A, Valdivieso P, Caballero V. 2015. Instrumentation difficulty with vacuum-assisted delivery in primiparous womens. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 28:2041–2047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. 2002a. Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 19:258–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. 2002b. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 19:264–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. 1979. Interclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86:420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Hudson CN. 1993. Anal sphincter trauma during instrumental delivery. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 43:263–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. 1999. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. The New England Journal of Medicine 341:1709–1714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KA Eggebo 2011. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 37:702–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KA, Eggebo TM. 2012. Agreement between two- and three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound methods in assessing fetal head descent in the first stage of labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 39:310–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W. 2011. A study of progress of labour using intrapartum translabial ultrasound, assessing head station, direction, and angle of descent. BJOG 118:62–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W. 2013. Quantification of fetal head direction and descent. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 41:99–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef A, Bellussi F, Maroni E, Pilu G, Rizzo N, Ghi T. 2012. Ultrasound in labor: is it time for a more simplified approach? Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 41:710–711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef A, Ghi T, Awad EE, Maroni E, Montaguti E, Rizzo N, Pilu G. 2013. Ultrasound in labor: a caregiver’s perspective. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 41:469–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef A, Maroni E, Ragusa A, De Musso F, Salsi G, Iammarino MT, et al. 2013. Fetal head-symphysis distance: a simple and reliable ultrasound index of fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 41:419–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vacca A, Keirse MJNC. 1989. Instrumental vaginal delivery. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, editors. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1216–1233.
   Google Scholar