Can assessing the angle of progression before labor onset assist to predict vaginal birth after cesarean?: A prospective cohort observational study

References

• Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK. Births: preliminary data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2016;65(3):1–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2010;191:1–397.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert SA, Grobman WA, Landon MB, et al. Eunice kennedy shriver national institute of child H, human development maternal-fetal medicine units N. Cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after previous cesarean in a minimally biased cohort. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(1):11–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Panel. National institutes of health consensus development conference statement: vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights march 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010;115:1279–1295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:450–463.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, et al. National Institute of Child H, human development maternal-fetal medicine Units N. The MFMU cesarean registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(3):1016–1023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Stevens EJ, et al. Predicting failure of a vaginal birth attempt after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4):800–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight HE, Gurol-Urganci I, van der Meulen JH, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: a cohort study investigating factors associated with its uptake and success. BJOG-Int J Obstet GY. 2014;121(2):183–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamm BL, Geiger AM. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an admission scoring system. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(6):907–910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith GC, White IR, Pell JP, et al. Predicting cesarean section and uterine rupture among women attempting vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. PLoS Med. 2005;2(9):e252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. National Institute of Child H, human development maternal-fetal medicine Units N. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstetr Gynecol. 2007;109:806–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Does information available at admission for delivery improve prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean? Amer J Perinatol. 2009;26(10):693–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, et al. Simple, validated vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction model for use at the time of admission. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(3):571–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashwal E, Wertheimer A, Aviram A, et al. Prediction of successful trial of labor after cesarean – the benefit of prior vaginal delivery. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;29:1–2670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashima JN, Guise JM. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a prenatal scoring tool. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(5):e22–e23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, et al. Increased success of trial of labor after previous vaginal birth after cesarean. Obstetr Gynecol. 2004; 104:715–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalok A, Zabil SA, Jamil MA, et al. Mohamed Ismail NA. Antenatal scoring system in predicting the success of planned vaginal birth following one previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(3):339–343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• [cited 2020 Jun 3]. Available from: https://mfmunetwork.bsc.gwu.edu/PublicBSC/MFMU/VGBirthCalc/vagbrth2.html.
   Google Scholar
• Harris BS, Heine RP, Park J, et al. Are prediction models for vaginal birth after cesarean accurate? Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2019;220(5):492-e491-492 e497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, et al. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):625–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland 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
• Kalache KD, Duckelmann 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
• Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, et al. A study of progress of labour using intrapartum translabial ultrasound, assessing head station, direction, and angle of descent. BJOG-Int J Obstet GY. 2011;118(1):62–69.
   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
• Gilboa Y, Kivilevitch Z, Spira M, et al. Head progression distance in prolonged second stage of labor: relationship with mode of delivery and fetal head station. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):436–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillor M, Vaisbuch E, Zaks S, et al. Transperineal sonographic assessment of angle of progression as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(2):240–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, et al. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2017;217(1):69 e61-69 e10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlik U, Weissmann-Brenner A, Kivilevitch Z, et al. Head progression distance during the first stage of labor as a predictor for delivery outcome. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(3):380–384. 1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef A, Dodaro MG, Montaguti E, et al. Dynamic changes of fetal head descent at term before the onset of labor correlate with labor outcome and can be improved by ultrasound visual feedback. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;1–8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2019.1651266.] [Online ahead of print].
   Google Scholar
• Tse WT, Chaemsaithong P, Chan WWY, et al. Labor progress determined by ultrasound is different in women requiring Cesarean delivery from those who experience a vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2019;221(4):335.e1–335.e18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan WWY, Chaemsaithong P, Lim WT, et al. Pre-Induction Transperineal Ultrasound Assessment for the Prediction of Labor Outcome. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019;45(4):256–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chor CM, Poon LCY, Leung TY. Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32:31–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciaciura-Jarno M, Cnota W, Wojtowicz 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
• Antonio Sainz J, Borrero C, Aquise A, et al. 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; 29:1–3405.
   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
• Duckelmann 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
• 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
• Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Stoutenbeek P, Visser GH. Transperineal versus transvaginal sonographic cervical length measurement in second- and third-trimester pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(5):657–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comas M, Cochs B, Marti L, et al. Ultrasound examination at term for predicting the outcome of delivery in women with a previous cesarean section. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29:3870–3874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar