Display options
Cite
Chor CM, Chan WYW, Tse WTA, et al. Measurement of retropubic tissue thickness using intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to assess cephalopelvic disproportion. Ultrasonography. 2017;37(3):211-216doi: 10.14366/usg.17003.
Chor, C. M., Chan, W. Y. W., Tse, W. T. A., & Sahota, D. S. (2018). Measurement of retropubic tissue thickness using intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to assess cephalopelvic disproportion. Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 37(3), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.17003
Chor, Chung Ming, et al. "Measurement of retropubic tissue thickness using intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to assess cephalopelvic disproportion." Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) vol. 37,3 (2018): 211-216. doi: https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.17003
Chor CM, Chan WYW, Tse WTA, Sahota DS. Measurement of retropubic tissue thickness using intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to assess cephalopelvic disproportion. Ultrasonography. 2018 Jul;37(3):211-216. doi: 10.14366/usg.17003. Epub 2017 Aug 11. PMID: 29190877; PMCID: PMC6044218.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ultrasonography. 2018 Jul;37(3):211-216. doi: 10.14366/usg.17003. Epub 2017 Aug 11.

Measurement of retropubic tissue thickness using intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to assess cephalopelvic disproportion.

Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea)

Chung Ming Chor, Wai Yin Winnie Chan, Wing Ting Ada Tse, Daljit Singh Sahota

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China.

PMID: 29190877 PMCID: PMC6044218 DOI: 10.14366/usg.17003

Abstract

PURPOSE: First, to describe a new method of assessing cephalopelvic disproportion by measuring the retropubic tissue thickness (RTT), and second, to determine whether RTT was associated with an eventual delivery by cesarean section.

METHODS: Three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound scans were performed on 129 laboring nulliparous women to obtain 3-dimensional volume datasets for assessing RTT. RTT was measured off-line by three operators (A, B, and C) as the shortest distance between the capsule of the pubic symphysis and the outer border of the fetal skull. The intraoperator repeatability of operator A and the interoperator reproducibility among A, B, and C were determined. The RTT in women who were delivered by cesarean section due to failure to progress was compared to that of women who had a vaginal delivery.

RESULTS: The intraoperator repeatability for RTT was 1.2 mm. The overall RTT interoperator interclass correlation was 0.97 (0.95-0.98). The RTT in women who had a spontaneous, instrumental, or cesarean delivery was 1.16±0.32 cm, 1.12±0.25 cm, and 0.94±0.25 cm, respectively. Women who were delivered by cesarean section had a significantly smaller RTT than women who had a spontaneous delivery (P=0.008). There was no statistically significant difference in RTT between patients who had a normal vaginal delivery and patients who had an instrumental delivery (P=0.990), or between those who had an instrumental delivery and those who had a cesarean delivery after the Bonferroni correction (P=0.120).

CONCLUSION: RTT can be measured with satisfactory intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility. RTT was significantly smaller in women who eventually had a cesarean delivery than in those who had a vaginal delivery.

Keywords: Cephalopelvic disproportion; Measurement repeatability; Measurement reproducibility; Ultrasonography; Transperineal ultrasound

References

  1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;192(3):868-74 - PubMed
  2. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1972 Jul;115(3):623-9 - PubMed
  3. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):919-26 - PubMed
  4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;203(4):326.e1-326.e10 - PubMed
  5. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10 - PubMed
  6. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;33(3):313-9 - PubMed
  7. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jul;179(1):137-44 - PubMed
  8. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jun;74(3):e107-11 - PubMed
  9. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1951 Sep;62(3):600-6 - PubMed
  10. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;41(4):419-24 - PubMed
  11. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Sep;213(3):362.e1-6 - PubMed
  12. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;33(3):253-8 - PubMed
  13. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Nov;191(5):1797-9 - PubMed
  14. Br Med J. 1973 Nov 24;4(5890):451-5 - PubMed
  15. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;33(3):326-30 - PubMed
  16. Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Sep;56(3):296-300 - PubMed

Publication Types