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-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:19:36.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Uterine Contractions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

By
Christofides Agathoklis  and
Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Edited by
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran
Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Best Practice in Labour and Delivery , pp. 60 - 73
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Selin, L, Wallin, G, Berg, M. Dystocia in labour: risk factors, management and outcome – a retrospective observational study in a Swedish setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008; 87: 216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arulkumaran, S, Koh, CH, Ingemarsson, I, Ratnam, SS. Augmentation of labour: mode of delivery related to cervimetric progress. Aust & NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987; 27: 304–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J, Troendle, J, Mikolajczyk, R, et al. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115 (4): 705–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, J, Callwood, A, Paranjothy, S. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit: update. Pract Midwife. 2000; 3(11): 20.Google ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S. Uterine activity in labour. In Grudzinskas, JG, Yovich, JL, Simpson, JL, Chard, T (eds), Uterine Physiology (pp. 356–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
Sanborn, BM. Cell and molecular biology of myometrial smooth muscle function. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2007; 18: 287–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garfield, RE, Maner, WL. Physiology and electrical activity of uterine contractions. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2007; 18: 289–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, JM. Regulation of activity in uterine smooth muscle. Physiol Rev Suppl. 1962; 5: 213–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Cottrill, HM, Barton, JR, O'Brien, JM, Rhea, DL, Milligan, DA. Factors influencing maternal perception of uterine contractions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190: 1455–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibb, D. Uterine Activity in Labour. Tunbridge Wells: Castle House Publications; 1989.Google Scholar
Steer, PJ. Standards in fetal monitoring: practical requirements for uterine activity measurement and recording. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993; 100(suppl. 9): 32–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, AM, Monga, M, Richeson, KS. Correlation of external and internal monitoring of uterine activity in a cohort of term patients. Am J Perinatol. 2001; 18(3): 137–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaCroix, GE. Monitoring labor by an external tokodynamometer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1968; 101: 111–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nageotte, M. Uterine Contraction Monitoring, 3rd edition, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2003.Google Scholar
Chua, S, Arulkumaran, S, Yang, M, Steer, PJ, Ratnam, SS. Intrauterine pressure: comparison of extra vs. intra amniotic methods using a transducer tipped catheter. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994; 20: 35–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, WH, Paul, RH, Toews, J. Intrapartum fetal monitoring: maternal and fetal morbidity and perinatal mortality. Obstet Gynecol. 1973; 41: 7–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Nuttall, ID. Perforation of a placental fetal vessel by an intrauterine pressure catheter. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978; 85: 573–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devoe, LD, Gardner, P, Dear, C, Searle, N. Monitoring intrauterine pressure during active labor: a prospective comparison of two methods. J Reprod Med. 1989; 34: 811–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Svenningsen, L, Jensen, O. Application of fiberoptics to the clinical measurement of intra-uterine pressure in labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986; 65: 551–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanner, T, Gardosi, J. Intrapartum assessment of uterine activity. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 10: 243–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Yang, M, Tien, CY, Ratnam, SS. Reliability of intrauterine pressure measurements. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 78: 800–2.Google ScholarPubMed
Chua, S, Arulkumaran, S, Yang, M, Ratnam, SS, Steer, PJ. The accuracy of catheter-tip pressure transducers for the measurement of intrauterine pressure in labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992; 99: 186–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chua, S, Kurup, A, Arulkumaran, S, Ratnam, SS. Augmentation of labor: does internal tocography result in better obstetric outcome than external tocography? Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 76: 164–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Bakker, JHJ, Janssen, PF, van Halem, K et al. Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 8. CD006947. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006947Google Scholar
Chia, YT, Arulkumaran, S, Soon, SB, Norshida, S, Ratnam, SS. Induction of labour: does internal tocography result in better obstetric outcome than external tocography. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993; 33: 159–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haran, G, Elbaz, M, Fejgin, MD, Biron-Shental, T. A comparison of surface acquired uterine electromyography and intrauterine pressure catheter to assess uterine activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206(5): e1–e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maul, H, Maner, WL, Olson, G, Saade, GR, Garfield, RE. Non-invasive transabdominal uterine electromyography correlates with the strength of intrauterine pressure and is predictive of labor and delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 15: 297–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marque, CK, Terrien, J, Rihana, S, Germain, G. Preterm labour detection by use of a biophysical marker: the uterine electrical activity. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007; 7: S5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, W, Li, G, Lin, L. Uterine electromyogram topography to represent synchronization of uterine contractions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007; 97: 120–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odendaal, HJ, Brink, S, Steytler, JG. Clinical and haematological problems associated with severe abruptio placentae. S Afr Med J. 1978; 54: 476–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Woolfson, J, Steer, PJ, Bashford, CC, Randall, NJ. The measurement of uterine activity in induced labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1976; 83: 934–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, PC, van Geijn, HP. Uterine activity: implications for the condition of the fetus. J Perinat Med. 2008; 36: 30–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Althaus, JE, Petersen, S, Driggers, R, et al. Cephalopelvic disproportion is associated with an altered uterine contraction shape in the active phase of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 739–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caldeyro-Barcia, R, Sica-Blanco, Y, Poseiro, JJ, et al. A quantitative study of the action of synthetic oxytocin on the pregnant human uterus. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1957; 121: 18–31.Google ScholarPubMed
El-Sahwi, S, Gaafar, AA, Toppozada, HK. A new unit for evaluation of uterine activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967; 98: 900–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, FC, Yeh, SY, Schifrin, BS, Paul, RH, Hon, EH. Quantitation of uterine activity in 100 primiparous patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976; 124: 398–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steer, PJ, Carter, MC, Beard, RW. Normal levels of active contraction area in spontaneous labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984; 91: 211–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, GF, Calder, AA. Units for the evaluation of uterine contractility. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987; 94: 236–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Yang, M, Ingemarsson, I, Singh, P, Ratnam, SS. Augmentation of labour: does oxytocin titration to achieve preset active contraction area values produce better obstetric outcome? Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989; 15: 333–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibb, DM, Arulkumaran, S, Ratnam, SS. A comparative study of methods of oxytocin administration for induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985; 92: 688–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Chua, S, Chua, TM, et al. Uterine activity in dysfunctional labour and target uterine activity to be aimed with oxytocin titration. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991; 17: 101–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, PC, Kurver, PH, Kuik, DJ, Van Geijn, HP. Elevated uterine activity increases the risk of fetal acidosis at birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 196: e311–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peebles, DM, Spencer, JA, Edwards, AD, et al. Relation between frequency of uterine contractions and human fetal cerebral oxygen saturation studied during labour by near infrared spectroscopy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994; 101: 44–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Gibb, DMF, Ratnam, SS, Heng, SH, Lun, KC. Total uterine activity in induced labour: an index of cervical and pelvic tissue resistance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985; 92: 693–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, DB, van Middelkoop, A, Philpott, RH. Intrauterine-pressure studies in African nulliparae: normal labour progress. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982; 89: 364–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Fairlie, FM, Phillips, GF, Andrews, BJ, Calder, AA. An analysis of uterine activity in spontaneous labour using a microcomputer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988; 95: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Gibb, DM, Lun, KC, Heng, SH, Ratnam, SS. The effect of parity on uterine activity in labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984; 91: 843–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J, Bricker, L, Wray, S, Quenby, S. Poor uterine contractility in obese women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 114: 343–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, S. Insights into the uterus. Exp Physiol. 2007; 92: 621–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parratt, JR, Taggart, MJ, Wray, S. Changes in intracellular pH close to term and their possible significance to labour. Pflugers Arch. 1995; 430: 1012–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quenby, S, Pierce, SJ, Brigham, S, Wray, S. Dysfunctional labor and myometrial lactic acidosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 718–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Gibb, DM, Ingemarsson, I, Kitchener, HC, Ratnam, SS. Uterine activity during spontaneous labour after previous lower-segment caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989; 96: 933–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Chua, S, Arulkumaran, S, Singh, P, Ratnam, SS. Trial of labour after previous caesarean section: obstetric outcome. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989; 29: 12–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Ingemarsson, I, Ratnam, SS. Oxytocin augmentation in dysfunctional labour after previous caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989; 96: 939–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Chua, S, Ratnam, SS. Symptoms and signs with scar rupture: value of uterine activity measurements. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992; 32: 208–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Beckley, S, Gee, H, Newton, JR. Scar rupture in labour after previous lower uterine segment caesarean section: the role of uterine activity measurement. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991; 98: 265–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gee, H, Taylor, EW, Hancox, R. A model for the generation of intrauterine pressure in the human parturient uterus which demonstrates the critical role of the cervix. J Theor Biol. 1988; 133: 281–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, RH, Phelan, JP, Yeh, SY. Trial of labor in the patient with a prior cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Gibb, DM, Ratnam, SS, Heng, SH, Lun, KC. Uterine activity in oxytocin induced labour. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986; 12: 533–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oppenheimer, LW, Bland, ES, Dabrowski, A, et al. Uterine contraction pattern as a predictor of the mode of delivery. J Perinatol. 2002; 22: 149–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steer, PJ, Carter, MC, Beard, RW. The effect of oxytocin infusion on uterine activity levels in slow labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985; 92: 1120–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arulkumaran, S, Ingemarsson, I, Ratnam, SS. Oxytocin titration to achieve preset active contraction area values does not improve the outcome of induced labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987; 94: 242–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauth, JC, Hankins, GD, Gilstrap, LC III. Uterine contraction pressures achieved in parturients with active phase arrest. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 78: 344–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Crane, JM, Young, DC, Butt, KD, Bennett, KA, Hutchens, D. Excessive uterine activity accompanying induced labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97: 926–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Pacheco, LD, Rosen, MP, Gei, AF, Saade, GR, Hankins, GD. Management of uterine hyperstimulation with concomitant use of oxytocin and terbutaline. Am J Perinatol. 2006; 23: 377–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandraharan, E, Arulkumaran, S. Acute tocolysis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 17(2): 151–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibb, DM, Arulkumaran, S, Lun, KC, Ratnam, SS. Characteristics of uterine activity in nulliparous labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984; 91: 220–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FIGO Study Group on the Assessment of New Technology. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Intrapartum surveillance: recommendations on current practice and overview of new developments. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995; 49: 213–21.Google Scholar
Ayres-de Campos, D, Bernardes, J, Garrido, A, Marquesde-Sa, J, Pereira-Leite, L. SisPorto 2.0: a program for automated analysis of cardiotocograms. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000; 9: 311–18.Google ScholarPubMed

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
×