The birth canal: correlation between the pubic arch angle, the interspinous diameter, and the obstetrical conjugate: a computed tomography biometric study in reproductive age women

References

• Rozenholc AT, Ako SN, Leke RJ, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of external pelvimetry and maternal height to predict dystocia in nulliparous women: a study in Cameroon. BJOG. 2007;114(5):630–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liselele HB, Tshibangu CK, Meuris S. Association between external pelvimetry and vertex delivery complications in African women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(8):673–678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liselele HB, Boulvain M, Tshibangu KC, et al. Maternal height and external pelvimetry to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous African women: a cohort study. BJOG. 2000;107(8):947–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnamurthy S, Fairlie F, Cameron AD, et al. The role of postnatal x-ray pelvimetry after caesarean section in the management of subsequent delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98(7):716–718.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Korhonen U, Taipale P, Heinonen S. The diagnostic accuracy of pelvic measurements: threshold values and fetal size. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(4): 643–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korhonen U, Taipale P, Heinonen S. Fetal pelvic index to predict cephalopelvic disproportion – a retrospective clinical cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(6):615–621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattinson RC. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; 2:CD000161.
   Google Scholar
• Gomes M, Matias A, Macedo F. Risks to the fetus from diagnostic imaging during pregnancy: review and proposal of a clinical protocol. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(13):1916–1929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenhard M, Johnson T, Weckbach S, et al. Three-dimensional pelvimetry by computed tomography. Radiol Med. 2009;114(5):827–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenhard MS, Johnson TR, Weckbach S, et al. Pelvimetry revisited: analyzing cephalopelvic disproportion. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(3):e107–e111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spörri S, Thoeny HC, Raio L, et al. MR imaging pelvimetry: a useful adjunct in the treatment of women at risk for dystocia? Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(1):137–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaretsky MV, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry and the prediction of labor dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(5 Pt 1):919–926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilboa Y, Kivilevitch Z, Spira M, et al. Pubic arch angle in prolonged second stage of labor: clinical significance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):442–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi S, Chan SS, Sahota DS, et al. Measuring the angle of the subpubic arch using three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound scan: intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(3):191–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Youssef A, Martelli F, et al. A new method to measure the subpubic arch angle using 3-D ultrasound. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38(3):195–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrich SB, Shek K, Krahn U, et al. Measurement of subpubic arch angle by three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound and impact on vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):496–500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef A, Ghi T, Martelli F, et al. Subpubic arch angle and mode of delivery in low-risk nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016;40(2):150–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Chitty LS. Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(1):29–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royston P, Wright EM. How to construct “normal ranges” for fetal variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11(1):30–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson JE, Sistrom CL. Can fetal-pelvic disproportion be predicted? Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;43(2):247–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolea C, Zahr CA. Global burden of obstructed labour in the year 2000. Evidence and Information for Policy (EIP). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Blackadar CS, Viera AJ. A retrospective review of performance and utility of routine clinical pelvimetry. Fam Med. 2004;36(7):505–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floberg J, Belfrage P, Carlsson M, et al. The pelvic outlet. A comparison between clinical evaluation and radiologic pelvimetry. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65(4):321–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilboa Y, Bertucci E, Cani C, et al. Sonopelvimetry: an innovative method for early prediction of obstructed labour. OJOG. 2014;04(13):757–765.
   Google Scholar
• Lenke RR, Shuman WP. Computed tomographic pelvimetry. J Reprod Med. 1986;31(10):958–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeyabalan A, Larkin RW, Landers DV. Vaginal breech deliveries selected using computed tomographic pelvimetry may be associated with fewer adverse outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005; 17(6):381–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salk I, Cetin M, Salk S, et al. Determining the incidence of gynecoid pelvis using three-dimensional computed tomography in nonpregnant multiparous women. Med Princ Pract. 2016;25(1):40–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller TM, Rake A, Michel SC, et al. Obstetric MR pelvimetry: reference values and evaluation of inter- and intraobserver error and intraindividual variability. Radiology. 2003;227(1):37–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Youssef A, Martelli F, et al. Narrow subpubic arch angle is associated with higher risk of persistent occiput posterior position at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(4):511–515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bull HC. Pelvimetry in obstetrics. Postgrad Med J. 1949;25(285):310–318.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huerta-Enochian GS, Katz VL, Fox LK, et al. Magnetic resonance-based serial pelvimetry: do maternal pelvic dimensions change during pregnancy? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(6):1689–1694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Msamati BC, Igbigbi PS, Manda JK. The sub-pubic angle in adult indigenous Malawian subjects. East Afr Med J. 2005;82(12):643–648.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Small CI, Brits DM, Hemingway J. Quantification of the subpubic angle in South Africans. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;222(1–3):395.e1–395.e6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poma PA. X-ray pelvimetry in primiparas. I: role of physiological maturity. J Natl Med Assoc. 1982; 74(2):173–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michel SCA, Rake A, Treiber K, et al. MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(4):1063–1067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reitter A, Daviss BA, Bisits A, et al. Does pregnancy and/or shifting positions create more room in a woman’s pelvis? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):662.e1–662.e9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar