Assessment of the angle of progression and distance perineum-head in the prediction of type of delivery and duration of labor using intrapartum ultrasonography

References

• Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S. Indications for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):1–15.
   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. 2009;33(3):253–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68(6):1568–1575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walraven GE. WHO partograph. Lancet. 1994;344(8922):617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. 2005;192(3):868–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, et al. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123(2):193–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL, et al. International Multicenter Term PROM Study: evaluation of predictors of neonatal infection in infants born to patients with premature rupture of membranes at term. Premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(3 Pt 1):635–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, et al. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(3):331–336.
   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. 2005;25(2):165–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, et al. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):199–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, et al. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(3):313–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalache KD, Dückelmann AM, Michaelis SA, et al. 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. 2009;33(3):326–330.
   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. 2010;35(2):216–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, et al. What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(4):493–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy R, Zaks S, Ben-Arie A, et al. Can angle of progression in pregnant women before onset of labor predict mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(3):332–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan WA, Eggebø T, Ferguson M, et al. The sonopartogram: a novel method for recording progress of labor by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(2):189–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, et al. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(4):387–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebø TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KÅ, et al. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: a two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(2):195–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, et al. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):661–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MEAC. Protocolos e Diretrizes Terapêuticas da Maternidade Escola Assis Chateaubriand. Unidade 6 obstetrícia. Capítulos 3, 5, 8, 12 e 22 [cited 2018 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.ebserh.gov.br/web/meac-ufc/protocolos-e-pops.
   Google Scholar
• Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KÅ, Eggebø TM. Agreement between two- and three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound methods in assessing fetal head descent in the first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(3):310–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toh-Adam R, Srisupundit K, Tongsong T. Short stature as an independent risk factor for cephalopelvic disproportion in a country of relatively small-sized mothers. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1513–1516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke N, Burke G, Breathnach F, et al. Prediction of cesarean delivery in the term nulliparous woman: results from the prospective, multicenter Genesis study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(6):598.e1–598.e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Cyna AM, et al. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD000331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciaciura-Jarno M, Cnota W, Wójtowicz D, et al. Evaluation of selected ultrasonography parameters in the second stage of labor in prediction mode of delivery. Ginekol Pol. 2016;87(6):448–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsoosi V, Pirjani R, Mansouri B, et al. Role of “angle of progression” in prediction of delivery mode. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(11):1693–1699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Youssef A, Maroni E, et al. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound assessment of fetal head progression in active second stage of labor and mode of delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):430–435.
   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. 2011;37(6):702–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carseldine WJ, Phipps H, Zawada SF, et al. Does occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour increase the operative delivery rate? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53(3):265–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KÅ, VON Brandis P, et al. Predictive value of ultrasound assessed fetal head position in primiparous women with prolonged first stage of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(11):1300–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghi T, Maroni E, Youssef A, et al. Sonographic pattern of fetal head descent: relationship with duration of active second stage of labor and occiput position at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):82–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutschek B, Torkildsen EA, Eggebø TM. Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):425–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zúñiga R, Apaza J, Puma S, et al. Translabial intrapartum ultrasound in determining duration of the second stage of labor. Rev Peru Ginecol Obstet. 2013;59:255–260.
   Google Scholar