medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Number 06

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (06)

Cervical length as a predictor of success in labor induction

Villanueva GD, Cepeda NAC, Ozuna-Díaz H, Fernández RLE

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 224-233
PDF size: 209.91 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the role of cervical length measurement as a predictor of success in labor induction and its relationship with Bishop's scale, and to identify a cut-off value to estimate the success rate.
Materials and Methods: Prospective, observational and analytical study carried out at the University Hospital of Saltillo in patients with term pregnancy and induction of labor. Inclusion criteria: nulliparity, between 37 and 41 weeks 6-7 days of gestation, singleton pregnancies with live fetus in cephalic presentation and intact amniotic membranes. Exclusion criteria: severe acute maternal morbidity or neonates weighing more than 4,000 g. Induction was performed within 4 hours of cervical measurement by different methods.
Results: 131 patients with a mean gestational age of 39.2 weeks were included. The main indication for labor induction was post-term in 31% of cases (n = 41). Bishop's score was less predictive of success. Patients with a cervical length of less than 23.4 mm were more likely to deliver. The 23.4 mm measurement was used as a cut-off with a sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 38.3%. The association between cervical length and Bishop was statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, cervical length showed statistical significance (p = 0.006).
Conclusions: The results suggest that cervical length is an indicator of cervical dysplasia.


REFERENCES

  1. Alavifard S, Meier K, Shulman Y, et al. Derivation and validationof a model predicting the likelihood of vaginal birth followinglabour induction. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 1919;130 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2232-8

  2. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, et al. Using a simplifiedBishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol2011; 117 (4): 805-11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297470/

  3. Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor.F1000Res. 2019 Oct 30; 8: F1000 Faculty Rev-1829. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823899/

  4. Sevrin CE, Martorelli LM, Brosco Famá ES, et al. Ultrasoundevaluation of the cervix to predict failed laborinduction. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2019; 41: 476-84.https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0039-1693679.pdf

  5. Park KH. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurementin predicting failed labor induction and cesareandelivery for failure to progress in nulliparous women. JKorean Med Sci 2007; 22 (4): 722. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2007.22.4.722

  6. Sinha P, Gupta M, Meena S. Comparing transvaginal ultrasoundmeasurements of cervical length to Bishop score inpredicting cesarean section following induction of labor:a prospective observational study. Cureus 2024; 16 (2):e54335. https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/original_article/pdf/213496/20240318-20511-popw2k.pdf

  7. Penfield CA, Wing DA. Labor Induction Techniques: which isthe best? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2017; 44 (4): 567-

  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-S0889854517301213/first-page-pdf8. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, et al. Transvaginal sonographicmeasurement of cervical length vs. Bishop scorein labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction ofCesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29(5): 568-73. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/uog.4018

  9. Leelarujijaroen C, Pruksanusak N, Geater A, et al. A predictivemodel for successfully inducing active labor amongpregnant women: Combining cervical status assessmentand clinical characteristics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol ReprodBiol X 2023; 18: 100196. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10192386/

  10. Abdullah ZHA, Chew KT, Velayudham VRV, et al. Pre-inductioncervical assessment using transvaginal ultrasoundversus Bishops cervical scoring as predictors of successfulinduction of labour in term pregnancies: A hospital-basedcomparative clinical trial. PLoS One 2022; 17 (1): e0262387.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id = 10.1371/journal.pone.0262387

  11. Bortoletto TG, Silva TV, Borovac-Pinheiro A, et al. Cervicallength varies considering different populations and gestationaloutcomes: Results from a systematic review andmeta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2021; 16 (2): e0245746. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0245746

  12. Berghella V, Bega G, Tolosa J, et al. Ultrasound assessmentof the cervix. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2003; 46 (4): 947-62.https://web.archive.org/web/20170810224840id_/http://www.maternofetalnic.com/subidas/UltrasoundAssessmentoftheCervixPREDICTION.pdf

  13. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, et al. SonographicCervical Length Measurement before LaborInduction in Term Nulliparous Women. Fetal Diagnosisand Therapy 2006; 21 (1): 34-38. https://sci-hub.wf/10.1159/000089045

  14. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, et al.Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical lengthin the prediction of successful induction of labor. UltrasoundObstet Gynecol 2001; 18 (6): 623-28. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00580.x

  15. Sánchez-Ramos L, Levine LD, Sciscione A, et al. Methodsfor the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am J ObstetGynecol 2024; S669-S995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009

  16. Verhoeven CJM, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, et al. Transvaginalsonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging forpredicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2013; 42: 500-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12467

  17. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 766: Approaches to Limit InterventionDuring Labor and. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (2):e164-73. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003074

  18. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 761: Cesarean Delivery onMaternal Request. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (1): e73-77.https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003006

  19. Kamran A, Nasir GM, Zia MS, et al. Accuracy of transvaginalultrasound measured cervical length and Bishop scorein predicting successful induction of labor at term. J SocObstet Gynaecol Pak 2022; 12(3):183-187. https://jsogp.net/index.php/jsogp/article/view/549/663

  20. Aggarwal K, Yadav A. Role of transvaginal ultrasonographiccervical assessment in predicting the outcome of inductionof labor. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2019; 8 (2):628-36. https://imsear.searo.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/fb3ecead-8eb6-4ac6-adc8-8440f4a807c2/content

  21. Khazardoost S, Ghotbizadeh Vahdani F, Latifi S. et al.Pre-induction translabial ultrasound measurements inpredicting mode of delivery compared to bishop score: across-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016; 16:330. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1090-x

  22. Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods forassessing pre‐induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Databaseof Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD010762.https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com