Pre-induction cervical assessment using transvaginal ultrasound versus Bishops cervical scoring as predictors of successful induction of labour in term pregnancies: A hospital-based comparative clinical trial

Objective To evaluate the association between transvaginal ultrasound scan of cervix and Bishop’s score in predicting successful induction of labour, cut-off points and patients’ tolerability and acceptance for both procedures. Design A comparative clinical trial. Setting A tertiary hospital in Selangor, Malaysia. Participants 294 women planned for elective induction of labour for various indications were included. All women had transvaginal ultrasound to assess the cervical length and digital vaginal examination to assess the Bishop cervical scoring by separate investigators before induction of labour. Primary outcome measure To evaluate the association of the cervical length by transvaginal ultrasound scan and Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labour. Secondary outcome measure Variables associated with successful induction of labour and patients’ tolerability and acceptance for transvaginal ultrasound scan of cervix. Results There was no statistically significant difference among the vaginal and Caesarean delivery groups in terms of mean maternal age, height, weight, body mass index, ethnicity and gestational age at induction. Vaginal delivery occurred in 207 women (70.4%) and 87 women (29.6%) delivered via Caesarean section. There was a high degree of correlation between the cervical length and Bishop score (r-value 0.745; p <0.001). Sonographic assessment of cervical length demonstrated a comparable accuracy in comparison to Bishop score. Analysis using ROC curves noted an optimal cut-off value of ≤27mm for cervical length and Bishop score of ≥ 4, with a sensitivity of 69.1% vs 67%, specificity 60.9% vs 55%, and area under the curves (AUCs) of 0.672 and 0.643 respectively (p <0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that parity (OR 2.70), cervical length (OR 0.925), Bishop score (OR 1.272) and presence of funnelling (OR 3.292) were highly significant as independent predictors of success labour induction. Women also expressed significantly less discomfort with transvaginal ultrasound compared with digital vaginal examination. Conclusion Sonographic assessment of cervical measurement predicts the success of induction of labour with similar diagnostic accuracy with conventional Bishop score.

[1]  J. Kwon,et al.  Predicting labor induction success by cervical funneling in uncomplicated pregnancies , 2020, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[2]  K. Atwa,et al.  Antenatal cervical length measurement as a predictor of successful vaginal birth , 2020, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[3]  M. Kaur,et al.  Role of Transvaginal Sonography in Preinduction Cervical Assessment. Is it helpful? , 2020 .

[4]  A. Marconi Recent advances in the induction of labor , 2019, F1000Research.

[5]  A. Abbas,et al.  Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length versus Bishop score in labor induction at term for prediction of caesarean delivery , 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.

[6]  A. Mansy,et al.  SONOGRAPHIC CERVICAL CANAL LENGTH AND/ OR A BISHOP SCORE ASSESSMENT AS A PREDICTOR FOR SUCCESSFUL INDUCTION OF LABOR , 2018, The Egyptian Journal of Fertility of Sterility.

[7]  Jacquelyn C. Campbell,et al.  The feeling of discomfort during vaginal examination, history of abuse and sexual abuse and post‐traumatic stress disorder in women , 2017, Journal of clinical nursing.

[8]  M. Nagpal,et al.  Evaluation of pre induction scoring by clinical examination vs transvaginal sonography , 2016 .

[9]  J. Pickering,et al.  The structure and function of the cervix during pregnancy , 2016 .

[10]  Shruti Gupta,et al.  Study of Transvaginal Sonographic Assessment of Cervix in Predicting the Success of Labour Induction in Nulliparous Women , 2016 .

[11]  C. Nwachukwu,et al.  Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[12]  L. Rai,et al.  Manipal Cervical Scoring System by Transvaginal Ultrasound in Predicting Successful Labour Induction. , 2015, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[13]  S. Chung,et al.  Sonographically accessed funneling of the uterine cervix as a predictor of successful labor induction , 2015, Obstetrics & gynecology science.

[14]  D. Getahun Epidemiologic considerations: scope of problem and disparity concerns. , 2014, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  J. Souza,et al.  Patterns and Outcomes of Induction of Labour in Africa and Asia: A Secondary Analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Neonatal Health , 2013, PloS one.

[16]  Groeneveld Yj,et al.  Cervical length measured by transvaginal ultrasonography versus Bishop score to predict successful labour induction in term pregnancies. , 2010 .

[17]  A. Bohnen,et al.  Cervical length measured by transvaginal ultrasonography versus Bishop score to predict successful labour induction in term pregnancies , 2010, Facts, views & vision in ObGyn.

[18]  K. Salvesen,et al.  Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score? , 2009, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[19]  N. Maitra,et al.  Transvaginal measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labour , 2009, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[20]  V. Suri,et al.  Pre‐induction sonographic assessment of the cervix in the prediction of successful induction of labour in nulliparous women , 2007, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[21]  K. Quek,et al.  Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery , 2007, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[22]  P. Tan,et al.  Ultrasound and clinical predictors for Caesarean delivery after labour induction at term. , 2007, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[23]  P. Tan,et al.  Ultrasound and clinical predictors for Caesarean delivery after labour induction at term , 2006 .

[24]  N. Papantoniou,et al.  Sonographic Cervical Length Measurement before Labor Induction in Term Nulliparous Women , 2005, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy.

[25]  Smita I. Rane,et al.  Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length , 2005, 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.

[26]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor , 2001, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[27]  D. Young,et al.  Transvaginal Ultrasound and Digital Examination in Predicting Successful Labor Induction , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[28]  R. Gabriel,et al.  [Transvaginal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix before induction of labor]. , 2001, Gynecologie, obstetrique & fertilite.

[29]  R. Edwards,et al.  Preinduction Cervical Assessment , 2000, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[30]  R. Liston,et al.  Effect of labour induction on rates of stillbirth and cesarean section in post-term pregnancies. , 1999, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[31]  R. Cole,et al.  ELECTIVE INDUCTION OF LABOUR A Randomised Prospective Trial , 1975, The Lancet.

[32]  E H BISHOP,et al.  Pelvic Scoring for Elective Induction , 1964, Obstetrics and gynecology.