Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T21:29:22.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Ultrasound Examination

from Part I - ANTEPARTUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

John Patrick O'Grady ,
Martin L. Gimovsky ,
Lucy A. Bayer-Zwirello  and
Kevin Giordano
By
Alisa B. Modena ,
Aileen M. Gariepy  and
Stuart Weiner
John Patrick O'Grady
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Alisa B. Modena
Affiliation:
Perinatologist, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Virtua Health Voorhees, New Jersey
Aileen M. Gariepy
Affiliation:
Clinical Instructor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Stuart Weiner
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the use of ultrasound scanning in the intrapartum assessment of patients in labor and its invaluable utility to guide invasive procedures. It reviews several of these recent advances: cervical length evaluation as a predictor of preterm delivery and for the selection of appropriate induction of labor candidates; the evaluation of uterine bleeding; the monitoring of intrapartum fetal weight, and fetal well-being. Evaluation of fetal amniotic fluid quantity is an essential fetal assessment tool for the obstetrician. Fetal blood sampling is a practice used to gain access to the fetal blood for various indications; classically, obtaining a fetal blood sample can assist in the diagnosis of genetic disorders using a technique of rapid karyotyping, as well as to diagnose fetal infection and determine fetal blood type. Ultrasonography has proved to be helpful in the diagnosis of failed placental separation, allowing for expeditious surgical management prior to severe hemorrhage.

Keywords

amniotic fluidhemorrhageintrapartum assessmentultrasonographyuterine bleedingplacental separationpreterm delivery
Type
Chapter
Information
Operative Obstetrics , pp. 44 - 68
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Iams, JD, Goldenberg, RL, Meis, PJ, Mercer, BM, Moawad, A, Das, A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med. 1996 Feb 29;334(9):567–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, JY, Higby, K, Smyth, MH, Ward, JA, Arredondo, F, Mayer, AR. Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep; 173(3 Pt 1):942–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, SH, Roh, CR, Kim, JH. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Mar;23(3):375–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, R, Darnaud, T, Chalot, F, Gonzalez, N, Leymarie, F, Quereux, C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;19(3):254–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, V, Raynor, BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 May;182(5):1030–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JE, Thieme, GA, Shah, DM, Fleischer, AC, Boehm, FH. Transabdominal and transvaginal endosonography: Evaluation of the cervix and lower uterine segment in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Oct;155(4):721–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibman, AJ, Kruse, B, McSweeney, MB. Transvaginal sonography: Comparison with transabdominal sonography in the diagnosis of pelvic masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988 Jul;151(1):89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, HF. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 1991 Feb;19(2):77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Yunis, RA. Confirming the safety of transvaginal sonography in patients suspected of placenta previa. Obstet Gynecol. 1993 May;81(5 (Pt 1)):742–4.Google Scholar
Carlan, SJ, Richmond, LB, O'Brien, WF. Randomized trial of endovaginal ultrasound in preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Mar;89(3):458–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, M, Weber-Rossler T, , Willmann, M.Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: An interobserver study and new standards to improve the interobserver variability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Mar;9(3):188–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtzman, JT, Goldsmith, LJ, Gall, SA, Spinnato, JA.Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: A blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Oct;179(4):852–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahony, BS, Nyberg, DA, Luthy, DA, Hirsch, JH, Hickok, , Petty, CN. Translabial ultrasound of the third-trimester uterine cervix: Correlation with digital examination. J Ultrasound Med. 1990 Dec;9(12):717–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushnir, O, Vigil, DA, Izquierdo, L, Schiff, M, Curet, LB. Vaginal ultrasonographic assessment of cervical length changes during normal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Apr;162(4):991–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, VC, Southall, TR, Souka, AP, Novakov, A, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: Relation to demographic characteristics and previous obstetric history. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Nov;12(5):304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parulekar, SG, Kiwi, R.Dynamic incompetent cervix uteri. Sonographic observations. J Ultrasound Med. 1988 Sep;7(9):481–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, R, Galasso, M, Romero, R, Mazor, M, Sorokin, Y, Goncalves, L, et al. Ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix is better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Oct;171(4):956–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilianti, M, Azuaga, A, Calderon, F, Pages, G, Mendoza, G.Monitoring the effacement of the uterine cervix by transperineal sonography: A new perspective. J Ultrasound Med. 1995 Oct;14(10):719–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berghella, V, Kuhlman, K, Weiner, S, Texeira, L, Wapner, RJ.Cervical funneling: Sonographic criteria predictive of preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;10(3):161–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iams, JD, Johnson, FF, Sonek, J, Sachs, L, Gebauer, C, Samuels, P.Cervical competence as a continuum: A study of ultrasonographic cervical length and obstetric performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Apr;172(4 Pt 1):1097–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J, Yost, N, Berghella, V, MacPherson, C, Swain, M, Dildy, GA 3rd, Miodovnik, M, Langer, O, Sibai, B.Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network: Can shortened midtrimester cervical length predict very early spontaneous preterm birth?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;191(1):298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iams, JD, Goldenberg, RL, Mercer, BM, Moawad, AH, Meis, PJ, Das, AF, et al. The preterm prediction study: Can low-risk women destined for spontaneous preterm birth be identified?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Mar;184(4):652–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iams, JD.Prediction and early detection of preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;101(2):402–12.Google Scholar
Tsoi, E, Akmal, S, Rane, S, Otigbah, C, Nicolaides, KH. Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;21(6):552–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsoi, E, Fuchs, IB, Rane, S, Geerts, L, Nicolaides, KH. Sonographic measurement of cervical length in threatened preterm labor in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;25(4):353–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, IB, Henrich, W, Osthues, K, Dudenhausen, JW. Sonographic cervical length in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes presenting with threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;24(5):554–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rane, SM, Guirgis, RR, Higgins, B, Nicolaides, KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;24(5):538–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartha, JL, Romero-Carmona R, , Martinez-Del-Fresno P, , Comino-Delgado R., Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: A randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;25(2):155–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, H, Verspyck, E, Vercoustre, L, Degre, S, Col, JY, Firmin, JM, et al. The role of ultrasound and fetal fibronectin in predicting the length of induced labor when the cervix is unfavorable. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jun;23(6):567–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, FM, Gervasi, MT, Florio, P, Bracalente, G, Fadalti, M, Severi, FM, et al. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: Role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Nov;189(5):1361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, S, Crane, JM, Hutchens, D, Young, DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jul;98(1):2–6.Google Scholar
Rozenberg, P, Chevret, S, Chastang, C, Ville, Y.Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low Bishop score. BJOG. 2005 Feb;112(2):192–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissman, A, Itskovitz-Eldor J, , Jakobi, P.Sonographic measurement of amniotic fluid volume in the first trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 1996 Nov;15(11):771–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magann, EF, Doherty, DA, Chauhan, SP, Barrilleaux, SP, Verity, , Martin, JN Jr.Effect of maternal hydration on amniotic fluid volume. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;101(6):1261–5.Google Scholar
Manning, FA, Hill, LM, Platt, LD.Qualitative amniotic fluid volume determination by ultrasound: Antepartum detection of intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Feb 1;139(3):254–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, JP, Ahn, MO, Smith, CV, Rutherford, SE, Anderson, E.Amniotic fluid index measurements during pregnancy. J Reprod Med. 1987 Aug;32(8):601–4.Google Scholar
Moore, TR, Cayle, JE. The amniotic fluid index in normal human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 May;162(5):1168–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyamura, T, Masuzaki, H, Miyamoto, M, Ishimaru, T.Comparison between the single deepest pocket and amniotic fluid index in predicting fetal distress in small-for-gestational age fetuses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997 Feb;76(2):123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Doherty, DD, Magann, EF, Cahanding, F, Moreno, F, Klausen, JH. Amniotic fluid index vs. single deepest pocket technique during modified biophysical profile: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;191(2):661–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Magann, EF, Morrison, JC, Whitworth, NS, Hendrix, NW, Devoe, LD. Ultrasonographic assessment of amniotic fluid does not reflect actual amniotic fluid volume. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;177(2):291–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, RA. Physiology of amniotic fluid volume regulation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jun;40(2):280–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, FA. Dynamic ultrasound-based fetal assessment: The fetal biophysical profile score. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Mar;38(1):26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voxman, EG, Tran, S, Wing, DA. Low amniotic fluid index as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. J Perinatol. 2002 Jun;22(4):282–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locatelli, A, Vergani, P, Toso, L, Verderio, M, Pezzullo, JC, Ghidini, A. Perinatal outcome associated with oligohydramnios in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2004 Jan;269(2):130–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Sanderson, M, Hendrix, NW, Magann, EF, Devoe, LD. Perinatal outcome and amniotic fluid index in the antepartum and intrapartum periods: A meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Dec;181(6):1473–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, , Platt, LD, Medearis, AL, Horenstein, J.Quantifiable polyhydramnios: diagnosis and management. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Jun;75(6):989–93.Google Scholar
Ott, WJ. Reevaluation of the relationship between amniotic fluid volume and perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;192(6):1803–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, FA, Platt, LD, Sipos, L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Mar 15;136(6):787–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vintzileos, AM, Gaffney, SE, Salinger, LM, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ. The relationship between fetal biophysical profile and cord pH in patients undergoing cesarean section before the onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Aug;70(2):196–201.Google Scholar
Vintzileos, AM, Fleming, AD, Scorza, WE, Wolf, EJ, Balducci, J, Campbell, WA, et al. Relationship between fetal biophysical activities and umbilical cord blood gas values. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Sep;165(3):707–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribbert, LS, Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH, Visser, GH. Relationship of fetal biophysical profile and blood gas values at cordocentesis in severely growth-retarded fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Aug;163(2):569–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, FA, Lange, IR, Morrison, I, Harman, CR. Fetal biophysical profile score and the nonstress test: A comparative trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Sep;64(3):326–31.Google Scholar
Baskett, TF, Allen, AC, Gray, JH, Young, DC, Young, LM. Fetal biophysical profile and perinatal death. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Sep;70(3 Pt 1):357–60.Google Scholar
Kim, SY, Khandelwal, M, Gaughan, JP, Agar, MH, Reece EA. Is the intrapartum biophysical profile useful?Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep;102(3):471–6.Google Scholar
Kurkinen-Raty M, , Kivela, A, Jouppila, P.The clinical significance of an absent end-diastolic velocity in the umbilical artery detected before the 34th week of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997 May;76(5):398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Neilson, JP. Doppler ultrasonography in high-risk pregnancies: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 May;172(5):1379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, GC, Lilford, RJ, Porter, J, Nelson, E, Tyrell, S.Randomised comparison of routine versus highly selective use of Doppler ultrasound in low-risk pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Feb;100(2):130–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, T, Chien, PF, Gordon, A.Intrapartum umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome: A systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Aug;106(8):783–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siristatidis, C, Salamalekis, E, Kassanos, D, Creatsas, G.Alterations in Doppler velocimetry indices of the umbilical artery during fetal hypoxia in labor, in relation to cardiotocography and fetal pulse oximetry findings. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005 Sep;272(3):191–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzo, G, Capponi, A, Arduini, D, Romanini, C.The value of fetal arterial, cardiac and venous flows in predicting pH and blood gases measured in umbilical blood at cordocentesis in growth retarded fetuses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Dec;102(12):963–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahado-Singh, RO, Kovanci, E, Jeffres, A, Oz, U, Deren, O, Copel, J, Mari, G.The Doppler cerebroplacental ratio and perinatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Mar;180(3 Pt 1):750–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siristatidis, C, Salamalekis, E, Kassanos, D, Loghis, C, Creatsas, G.Evaluation of fetal intrapartum hypoxia by middle cerebral and umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry with simultaneous cardiotocography and pulse oximetry. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2004 Dec;270(4):265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, I, Lockwood, C, Belanger, K, Hobbins, J.Ultrasonographic assessment of gestational age with the distal femoral and proximal tibial ossification centers in the third trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Jan;158(1):127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazario, AC, Tanaka, CI, Novo, NF.Proximal humeral ossification center of the fetus: Time of appearance and the sensitivity and specificity of this finding. J Ultrasound Med. 1993 Sep;12(9):513–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongelli, M, Chew, S, Yuxin, NG, Biswas, A.Third-trimester ultrasound dating algorithms derived from pregnancies conceived with artificial reproductive techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Aug;26(2):129–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smulian, JC, Ranzini, AC, Ananth, CV, Rosenberg, JC, Vintzileos, AM.Comparison of three sonographic circumference measurement techniques to predict birth weight. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 May;93(5 Pt 1):692–6.Google Scholar
Callen, PWUltrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Company; 4th edition: 20, p 597.
Ananth, CV, Berkowitz, GS, Savitz, DA, Lapinski, RH. Placental abruption and adverse perinatal outcomes. JAMA. 1999 Nov 3;282(17):1646–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knab, DR. Abruptio placentae. An assessment of the time and method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Nov;52(5):625–9.Google Scholar
Abu-Heija A, , al-Chalabi H, , el-Iloubani, N.: Abruptio placentae: Risk factors and perinatal outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1998 Apr;24(2):141–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glantz, C, Purnell, L.Clinical utility of sonography in the diagnosis and treatment of placental abruption. J Ultrasound Med. 2002 Aug;21(8):837–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyberg, DA, Cyr, DR, Mack, , Wilson, DA, Shuman, WP. Sonographic spectrum of placental abruption. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987 Jan;148(1):161–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustafa, SA, Brizot, ML, Carvalho, MH, Watanabe, L, Kahhale, S, Zugaib, M.Transvaginal ultrasonography in predicting placenta previa at delivery: A longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;20(4):356–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RS, Lauria, MR, Comstock, CH, Treadwell, MC, Kirk, JS, Lee, W, Bottoms, SF. Transvaginal ultrasonography for all placentas that appear to be low-lying or over the internal cervical os. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jan;9(1):22–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leerentveld, RA, Gilberts, EC, Arnold, MJ, Wladimiroff, JW.Accuracy and safety of transvaginal sonographic placental localization. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Nov;76(5 Pt 1):759–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, WB, Dumas, MD, Romano, WM, Gagnon, R, Gratton, RJ, Mowbray, RD. Translabial ultrasonography and placenta previa: Does measurement of the os–placenta distance predict outcome?J Ultrasound Med. 1996 Jun;15(6):441–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, SM, Carpenter, RJ, Cotton, DB. Placenta percreta: Ultrasound diagnosis and conservative surgical management. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Mar;71(3 Pt 2):454–6.Google Scholar
Levine, D, Hulka, CA, Ludmir, J, Li, W, Edelman, RR.Placenta accreta: Evaluation with color Doppler US, power Doppler US, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1997 Dec;205(3):773–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, GP, Peisner, DB, Timor-Tritsch, IE.Ultrasonographic evaluation of uteroplacental blood flow patterns of abnormally located and adherent placentas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;163(3):723–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comstock, CH, Love, JJ Jr, Bronsteen, RA, Lee, W, Vettraino, IM, Huang, RR, Lorenz, RP.Sonographic detection of placenta accreta in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkinen, P, Helin-Martikainen, HL, Vanninen, R, Partanen, K.Placenta accreta: Imaging by gray-scale and contrast-enhanced color Doppler sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Ultrasound. 1998 Feb;26(2):90–4.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayburn, WF, Siemers, KH, Legino, LJ, Nabity, MR, Anderson, JC, Patil, KD.Dystocia in late labor: Determining fetal position by clinical and ultrasonic techniques. Am J Perinatol. 1989 Jul;6(3):316–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherer, DM, Miodovnik, M, Bradley, KS, Langer, O.Intrapartum fetal head position I: Comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;19(3):258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherer, DM, Miodovnik, M, Bradley, KS, Langer, O.Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;19(3):264–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chou, MR, Kreiser, D, Taslimi, MM, Druzin, ML, El-Sayed, YY.Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;191(2):521–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, FG, Gant, N, Leveno, KJ, Gilstrap, LC, Hauth, JC, Wenstrom, KD. Forceps Delivery and Vacuum Extraction. Williams Obstetrics, 21st Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001, 485–508.Google Scholar
Akmal, S, Kametas, N, Tsoi, E, Hargreaves, C, Nicolaides, KH.Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;21(5):437–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherer, DM, Abulafia, O.Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: Comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;21(5):430–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahalka, N, Sadan, O, Malinger, G, Liberati, M, Boaz, M, Glezerman, M, Rotmensch, S.Comparison of transvaginal sonography with digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Aug;193(2):381–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponkey, SE, Cohen, AP, Heffner, LJ, Lieberman, E.Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: Obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 May;101(5 Pt 1):915–20.Google Scholar
Rane, SM, Guirgis, RR, Higgins, B, Nicolaides, KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;24(5):538–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmal, S, Kametas, N, Tsoi, E, Howard, R, Nicolaides, KH.Ultrasonographic occiput position in early labour in the prediction of caesarean section. BJOG. 2004 Jun;111(6):532–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmal, S, Tsoi, E, Howard, R, Osei, E, Nicolaides, KH.Investigation of occiput posterior delivery by intrapartum sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;24(4):425–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardberg, M, Laakkonen, E, Salevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: A study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;91(5 Pt 1):746–9.Google Scholar
Akmal, S, Tsoi, E, Nicolaides, KH.Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal occipital position: Interobserver agreement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;24(4):421–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, PS, Repke, JT. Intrapartum management of multifetal pregnancies. Semin Perinatol. 2003 Feb;27(1):54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warenski, JC, Kochenour, NK.Intrapartum management of twin gestation. Clin Perinatol. 1989 Dec;16(4):889–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, RL, Hobbins, JC.Delivering twins with the help of ultrasound. Contemporary Ob-Gyn. 1982 February; 19: 128–131.Google Scholar
Seeds, JW. Diagnostic mid-trimester amniocentesis: How safe?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;191(2):607–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, A, Philip, J, Madsen, M, Bang, J, Obel, EB, Norgaard-Pedersen, B.Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet. 1986 Jun 7;1(8493):1287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappel, B, Nielsen, J, Brogaard, Hansen K, Mikkelsen, M, Therkelsen, AJ.Spontaneous abortion following mid-trimester amniocentesis: Clinical significance of placental perforation and blood-stained amniotic fluid. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987 Jan;94(1): 50–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daffos, F, Capella-Pavlovsky M, , Forestier, F.Fetal blood sampling during pregnancy with use of a needle guided by ultrasound: A study of 606 consecutive cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Nov 15;153(6):655–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, DH, Luthy, DA, Benedetti, TJ, Cyr, DR, Easterling, TR, Hickok, D.Intraperitoneal fetal transfusion under direct ultrasound guidance. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Jan;71(1):84–8.Google Scholar
Dolkart, L, Harter, M, Snyder, M.Four-dimensional ultrasonographic guidance for invasive obstetric procedures. J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Sep;24(9):1261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, SR, Won, HS, Lee, PR, Kim, A.Four-dimensional ultrasound guidance of prenatal invasive procedures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;26(6):663–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, CA, Laros, RK.Prolonged third stage of labor: Morbidity and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jun;77(6):863–7.Google Scholar
Herman, A, Zimerman, A, Arieli, S, Tovbin, Y, Bezer, M, Bukovsky, I, Panski, M.Down-up sequential separation of the placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;19(3):278–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krapp, M, Baschat, AA, Hankeln, M, Gembruch, U.Gray-scale and color Doppler sonography in the third stage of labor for early detection of failed placental separation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Feb;15(2):138–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, O, Rabinowitz, R, Eisenberg, VH, Samueloff, A.Transabdominal sonography before uterine exploration as a predictor of retained placental fragments. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Jun;22(6):561–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, AH, Kamm, MA, Hudson, CN, Thomas, JM, Bartram, CI.Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 23;329(26):1905–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, C, Bick, , Keighley, MR. Faecal incontinence after childbirth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Jan;104(1):46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, AH, Nicholls, RJ, Kamm, MA, Hudson, CN, Beynon, J, Bartram, CI. Anal endosonography and correlation with in vitro and in vivo anatomy. 1993 Br J Surg (79):104–106.Google ScholarPubMed
Faltin, DL, Boulvain, M, Floris, , Irion, O.Diagnosis of anal sphincter tears to prevent fecal incontinence: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;106(1):6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×