Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Correlation of Digital Vaginal Examination with Transabdominal Ultrasound to Assess Fetal Head Position during Active Labor

Manisha Verma, Sumitra Bachani

Keywords : Active management of labor, Antenatal ultrasound, Digital vaginal examination, Fetal head position

Citation Information : Verma M, Bachani S. Correlation of Digital Vaginal Examination with Transabdominal Ultrasound to Assess Fetal Head Position during Active Labor. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2019; 11 (6):375-380.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1726

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-02-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: An accurate intrapartum assessment of the fetal head position (FHP) is considered important for the management of both normal and abnormal labors. The position of the fetal head influences the obstetric outcomes such as labor dystocia, choice of instruments for assisted delivery, and the success of vaginal delivery. It is well accepted that the FHP is an important determinant of success of vaginal delivery, with the occiput anterior (OA) positions favoring mostly good labor outcomes, while the occiput posterior (OP) and occiput transverse positions having a higher rate of instrumental delivery or cesarean section.5–7 Digital vaginal examination (DVE) for determination of FHP can be subjective and inaccurate. This study was aimed to compare transabdominal ultrasound with DVE for determination of FHP during active labor. Materials and methods: This is a prospective observational study at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital. Low-risk pregnant women in active labor with singleton fetus in vertex presentation were enrolled in the study. Digital vaginal examination and transabdominal sonography were done for the assessment of FHP in the first and second stages of labor and prior to instrumental vaginal delivery. Labor and neonatal outcomes were recorded. Statistical analysis: Categorical variables were presented in number and percentage, and continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and median. Qualitative variables were correlated using Chi-square test. Interrater κ agreement was used to find out the strength of agreement between FHP by DVE and ultrasonography (USG). A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data were entered in MS Excel spreadsheet, and the analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. Results: The absolute agreement between DVE and transabdominal sonography for determining FHP was 55.82% in the first stage of labor, and the composite accuracy was 77.01% when FHP in DVE was assigned as correct within ± 45° in transabdominal sonography (κ = 0.538 and p ≤ 0.0001). The absolute agreement between DVE and transabdominal sonography for determining FHP was 66.27% in the second stage of labor, and the accuracy was improved by 20.30% when FHP in DVE was assigned as correct within ± 45° in transabdominal sonography (κ = 0.606 and p ≤ 0.0001). Ultrasound was able to correctly diagnose and facilitate instrumental delivery in the OA and occiput transverse positions. Κ showed moderate concordance (0.560). Majority (96%) of the women chose transabdominal ultrasound as the preferred modality for the FHP assessment as it is less obtrusive procedure than DVE, while 4% women had an equivocal response. Conclusion: Digital vaginal examination can fail to detect the correct FHP due to the presence of tense bag of membranes, caput succedaneum, and molding in active labor. A higher percentage of the occiput transverse and OP positions can be misdiagnosed on vaginal examination. Transabdominal ultrasonography (TAS) should be used to correctly determine the FHP in such conditions. Clinical significance: Transabdominal ultrasonography should be used to confirm the FHP prior to instrumental delivery and cesarean section, which will facilitate correct application and prevent intrapartum complications.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Souka AP, Haritos T, Basayiannis K, et al. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Foetal Neonatal Med 2003;13(1):59–63. DOI: 10.1080/ jmf.13.1.59.63.
  2. Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser WE. Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(4):763–772. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000154889.47063.84.
  3. Akmal S, Tsoi E, Kametas N, et al. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002;12(3):172–177. DOI: 10.1080/jmf.12.3.172.177.
  4. Shetty J, Aahir V, Pandey D, et al. Fetal head position during the first stage of labor: comparison between vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasound. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2014; 314617. DOI: 10.1155/2014/314617.
  5. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, et al. Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19(3):258–263. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00656.x.
  6. Adam G, Sirbu O, Voicu C, et al. Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of fetal head position, tip the scale: natural or instrumental delivery? Curr Health Sci J 2014;40(1):18–22. DOI: 10.12865/CHSJ.40.01.03.
  7. Verhoeven CJ, Rückert ME, Opmeer BC, et al. Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict mode of delivery: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40(1):9–13. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10102.
  8. Peregrine E, O’Brien P, Jauniaux E. Impact on delivery outcome of ultrasonographic fetal head position prior to induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(3):618–625. DOI: 10.1097/01. AOG.0000255972.48257.83.
  9. Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96(5 Pt 1):749–752. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200011000-00019.
  10. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, et al. Ultrasonographic occiput position in early labour in the prediction of caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111(6):532–536. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004. 00134.x.
  11. Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O’Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98(6):1027–1031. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01600-3.
  12. Gardberg M, Laakkonen E, Sälevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91(5 Pt 1):746–749. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-199805000- 00020.
  13. Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: a retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006;19(9):563–568. DOI: 10.1080/14767050600682487.
  14. Lok ZLZ, Chor MCM. Reliability of digital vaginal examination for foetal head position determination: a prospective observational study. Available from http://www.edoriumjournalofgyneobst.com/ archive/2015-archive/100002G06ZL2015-lok/100002G06ZL2015-lok. pdf. Last accessed on March 22, 2019.
  15. Chan VYT. Comparision of digital vaginal examination with intrapartum transabdominal ultrasound to determine fetal head position: a local experience. Available from https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/5f0f/9169172bc4352823026c307a5cf7622ee781. pdf. Last accessed on April 15, 2019.
  16. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, et al. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19(3):264–268. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00656.x.
  17. Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, et al. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005;123(2):193–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.04.009.
  18. Wong GY, Mok YM, Wong SF. Transabdominal ultrasound assessment of the fetal head and the accuracy of vacuum cup application. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;98(2):120–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.05.021.
  19. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, et al. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21(5):437–440. DOI: 10.1002/uog.103.
  20. Mola GD, Amoa AB, Edilyong J. Factors associated with success or failure in trials of vacuum extraction. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;42(1):35–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.0004-8666.2002.00041.x.
  21. Vacca A. Vacuum-assisted delivery: an analysis of traction force and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46(2):124–127. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006. 00540.x.
  22. Kreiser D, Schiff E, Lipitz S, et al. Determination of fetal occiput position by ultrasound during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Med 2001;10(4):283–286. DOI: 10.1080/jmf.10.4. 283.286.
  23. Chadwick LM, Pemberton PJ, Kurinczuk JJ. Neonatal subgaleal haematoma: associated risk factors, complications and outcome. J Paediatr Child Health 1996;32(3):228–232. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440- 1754.1996.tb01559.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.