A Novel Partogram for Stages 1 and 2 of Labor Based on Fetal Head Station Measured by Ultrasound: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Shoshana Haberman; Fouad Atallah; Jacky Nizard; Olive Buhule; Paul Albert; Ron Gonen; Yves Ville; Yoav Paltieli

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1702989

American Journal of Perinatology, Table of Contents

Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(S 01): e14-e20
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702989

Original Article

A Novel Partogram for Stages 1 and 2 of Labor Based on Fetal Head Station Measured by Ultrasound: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Shoshana Haberman

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York

,

Fouad Atallah

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York

,

Jacky Nizard

²Service de gynécologie obstétrique, Groupe hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France

,

Olive Buhule

³National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland

,

Paul Albert

³National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland

,

Ron Gonen

⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

,

Yves Ville

⁵Department of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Hôpital Necker-Enfants-Malade, Paris, France

,

Yoav Paltieli

⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Objective This study was aimed to describe continuous labor curves, including second stage, based on fetal head station.

Study Design We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study. The inclusion criteria were women with singleton uncomplicated cephalic term pregnancies in labor, who delivered vaginally. We used a device that combines ultrasound imaging with position-tracking technology to monitor the head station noninvasively throughout labor. We collected data on demographics, labor parameters, and delivery and neonatal outcomes.

Results A total of 613 women delivered vaginally, 327 (53.3%) were nulliparous, while 286 (46.7%) were multiparous. Time to delivery (TTD) diminished progressively with descent of the fetal head. When the head is engaged, the labor curve of multiparous women demonstrated a more prominent downward shift in curve as compared with nulliparous women. When comparing multipara and nullipara at engagement level, the median TTD was 1 and 1.62 hours, respectively. In 95% of women with unengaged head during the second stage, TTD of nulliparous and multiparous women were less than 3.8 and 3 hours, respectively.

Conclusion While current labor curves end at full dilatation, the described curves were developed throughout stages 1 and 2 of labor. The TTD, according to the station curves, shows an acceleration of labor, once passed the engagement level, especially in multiparous women.

Keywords

fetal head station - labor curve - ultrasound in labor - labor progression - LaborPro system

Full Text

References

References
1 Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954; 68 (06) 1568-1575
2 Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW. et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (06) 1281-1287
3 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. ; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 179-193
4 Carollo TC, Reuter JM, Galan HL, Jones RO. Defining fetal station. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (05) 1793-1796
5 Nizard J, Haberman S, Paltieli Y. et al. Determination of fetal head station and position during labor: a new technique that combines ultrasound and a position-tracking system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (04) 404.e1-404.e5
6 Paltieli Y, Sammour R. The LaborPro system: non-invasive, ultrasound-based determination of labor parameters. In: Farine D. ed. New Technologies for Managing Labor. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter; 2015: 43-60
7 Lavender T, Cuthbert A, Smyth RM. Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 8: CD005461
8 Sizer AR, Evans J, Bailey SM, Wiener J. A second-stage partogram. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96 (5, Pt 1): 678-683
9 Basu JK, Buchmann EJ, Basu D. Role of a second stage partogram in predicting the outcome of normal labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49 (02) 158-161
10 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 2009; 33 (03) 326-330
11 Dietz HP, Lanzarone V. Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25 (02) 165-168
12 Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T. et al. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (01) 69.e1-69.e10
13 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 (03) 253-258
14 Youssef A, Maroni E, Cariello L. et al. Fetal head-symphysis distance and mode of delivery in the second stage of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93 (10) 1011-1017
15 Youssef A, Bellussi F, Montaguti E. et al. Agreement between two- and three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound methods for assessment of fetal head-symphysis distance in active labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43 (02) 183-188
16 Youssef A, Maroni E, Ragusa A. et al. Fetal head-symphysis distance: a simple and reliable ultrasound index of fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (04) 419-424
17 Bibbo C, Rouse CE, Cantonwine DE, Little SE, McElrath TF, Robinson JN. Angle of progression on ultrasound in the second stage of labor and spontaneous vaginal delivery. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35 (04) 413-420
18 Perlman S, Kivilevitch Z, Moran O. et al. Correlation between clinical fetal head station and sonographic angle of progression during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31 (21) 2905-2910
19 Conversano F, Peccarisi M, Pisani P. et al. Automatic ultrasound technique to measure angle of progression during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (06) 766-775
20 Gillor M, Vaisbuch E, Zaks S, Barak O, Hagay Z, Levy R. Transperineal sonographic assessment of angle of progression as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49 (02) 240-245
21 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 2009; 33 (03) 331-336
22 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 (04) 430-435
23 Yonetani N, Yamamoto R, Murata M. et al. Prediction of time to delivery by transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 49 (02) 246-251
24 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 (02) 189-194
25 Usman S, Wilkinson M, Barton H, Lees CC. The feasibility and accuracy of ultrasound assessment in the labor room. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (20) 3442-3451
26 Leveno KJ, Nelson DB, McIntire DD. Second-stage labor: how long is too long?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (04) 484-489