MEASUREMENT OF INTRAPARTUM CAPUT SUCCEDANEUM AS A PREDICTOR OF DELIVERY MODE

Purpose: The aim of the study was to determine if the ultrasonographic measurement of Caput Succedaneum (CS) prior to entry into the true pelvis can predict of the delivery mode. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study. The CS was measured using Transvaginal ultrasound with the head station calculated using the Angle of Progression (AOP). Data were collated including the CS thickness, route of delivery, indication for operative delivery, demographic data and third stage complications. A Youden’s index was used to calculate a CS cut-off which was assessed for sensitivity and specificity by an ROC curve. Results: 46 patients recruited. 36 delivered spontaneously, 4 with vacuum extraction and 5 by Caesarean section. Three patients were excluded because of an AOP larger than the predetermined cut-off. Women were divided to two groups. Group 1: delivered vaginally (spontaneous or operative) and Group 2 delivered by Caesarean section. AOP and birth weight were comparable between the groups. The mean CS of Group 2 cases was significantly greater than Group 1 patients (15.84 mm vs. 9.56 mm, respectively (P=0.005). There was a significant difference between the groups in parturient age, gestational age and gravidity with a mean parity in Group 2 patients of 5 vs. 1.89 in Group 1 patients (P=0.013). A CS measurement>13.75mm was predictive of a Caesarean delivery with an 80% sensitivity and an 87% specificity. Conclusion: Measurement of the CS in early delivery can predict the delivery mode with a linear relationship between CS thickness and the risk of Caesarean section.

[1]  C. Lees,et al.  The feasibility and accuracy of ultrasound assessment in the labor room , 2019, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[2]  K. Salvesen,et al.  Reproducibility and acceptability of ultrasound measurements of head–perineum distance , 2018, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[3]  C. Lees,et al.  Prediction of delivery mode by ultrasound‐assessed fetal position in nulliparous women with prolonged first stage of labor , 2015, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[4]  K. Salvesen,et al.  A model to predict vaginal delivery in nulliparous women based on maternal characteristics and intrapartum ultrasound. , 2015, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  K. Salvesen,et al.  Intrapartum assessment of caput succedaneum by transperineal ultrasound: a two‐centre pilot study , 2015, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[6]  M. Bozkurt,et al.  Pelvic floor dysfunction, and effects of pregnancy and mode of delivery on pelvic floor. , 2014, Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology.

[7]  C. Lees,et al.  Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: a two‐center study , 2014, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[8]  E. Katorza,et al.  Caput succedaneum thickness in prolonged second stage of labour: a clinical evaluation , 2013, Australian and New Zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  Victoria L Handa,et al.  Vaginal Childbirth and Pelvic Floor Disorders , 2013, Women's health.

[10]  Z. Hagay,et al.  Can angle of progression in pregnant women before onset of labor predict mode of delivery? , 2012, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[11]  C. Verhoeven,et al.  Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict mode of delivery: a systematic review and bivariate meta‐analysis , 2012, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[12]  M. Mongelli,et al.  Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor , 2011, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[13]  C. Bamberg,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 , 2010, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[14]  J. Hobbins,et al.  A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound , 2009, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[15]  J. Anthony Managing Complications in Pregnancy and Childbirth. A Guide for Midwives and Doctors , 2008 .

[16]  P. Romundstad,et al.  Ultrasound assessment of fetal head–perineum distance before induction of labor , 2008, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[17]  E. Buchmann,et al.  Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station , 2008, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[18]  F. Menacker,et al.  Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. , 2008, Clinics in perinatology.

[19]  O. Dupuis,et al.  Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. , 2005, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[20]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery , 2003, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[21]  D. Sherer,et al.  Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. , 2002, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[22]  E. Sheiner,et al.  Obstetric risk factors for failure to progress in the first versus the second stage of labor , 2002, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[23]  E. Lieberman,et al.  Increased risk of cesarean delivery with advancing maternal age: indications and associated factors in nulliparous women. , 2001, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  R. H. Philpott,et al.  Fetal response to cephalopelvic disproportion. , 1981, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.