Role of ultrasound parameters in the prediction of failure of induction of labor using Dinoprostone

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 1, 2025
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v103i6.5612
Download
pdf
Vol. 103 No. 6 (2025): Tunis Med June 2025

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Hana Hakim
Gynecology Obstetrics department, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029, Sfax,Tunisie
Khaled Trigui
Gynecology Obstetrics department, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029, Sfax,Tunisie
Yosra Mejdoub
Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029 ,Sfax, Tunisie
Rahma Ben Msarra
Gynecology Obstetrics department, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029, Sfax,Tunisie
Hayfa Ghaoui
Gynecology Obstetrics department, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029, Sfax,Tunisie
Mohamed Derbel
Gynecology Obstetrics department, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029, Sfax,Tunisie
Kais Chaabane
Gynecology Obstetrics department, Faculty of medicine of Sfax, 3029, Sfax,Tunisie

Abstract

Introductio-Aim: Labor induction is the artificial induction of uterine contractions in a woman who was not already in labor in order to achieve a vaginal birth. The main objective of our study was to analyze the role of ultrasound parameters in the prediction of failure of induction of labor.


Methods: This was a prospective observational study performed in a tertiary care maternity. For all the women who met our inclusion criteria, we measured these ultrasound parameters: Cervical length (CL), cervical dilation, cervical posterior angle (CPA), fetal head-perineum distance (FHPD), fetal occiput position, biparietal diameter (BPD) and estimated fetal weight (EFW). We defined failure of induction of labor as the occurrence of a cesarean section at any moment after the start of the induction.


Results: we collected 150 cases of induction of labor that met our inclusion criteria. Failure of induction rate was 45 %. Ultrasound parameters that were significantly associated to failure of induction were Cervical length (p=0.003), cervical dilation (p=0.002), cervical posterior angle (p<10-3), fetal head-perineum distance (p<10-3) and estimated fetal weight (p=0.006). Multivariate regression analysis found that posterior cervical angle and fetal head-perineum distance were the variables independently affecting the outcome of the induction of labor with respective thresholds of 105° and 55mm.


Conclusion: Ultrasound can be very useful in predicting the failure of labor induction. The threshold values that we found should be tested and validated in future studies to create a model to predict failure of labor. 

Keywords:

induction, labor, ultrasound

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

  1. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386–397.
  2. Bishop EH. PELVIC SCORING FOR ELECTIVE INDUCTION. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–268.
  3. Faltin-Traub EF, Boulvain M, Faltin DL, Extermann P, Irion O. Reliability of the Bishop score before labour induction at term. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;112(2):178–181.
  4. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne. 2004;24(5):538–549.
  5. Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1829.
  6. Mesure de la longueur du canal cervical du col de l’utérus par échographie par voie vaginale. Intérêt dans la prévision de l’accouchement prématuré spontané. Rapport d’évaluation technologique (texte court) – juillet 2010. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction. 2011;40(4):375–380.
  7. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, Mazor M, Sorokin Y, Gonçalves 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. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1994;171(4):956–964.
  8. Al-Adwy AM, Sobh SM, Belal DS, Omran EF, Hassan A, Saad AH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of posterior cervical angle and cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):102–107.
  9. Dimassi K, Ben Amor A, Belghith C, Ben Khedija MA, Triki A, Gara MF. Ultrasound diagnosis of fetal head engagement. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;127(1):6–9.
  10. Youssef A, Ghi T, Pilu G. How to perform ultrasound in labor: assessment of fetal occiput position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(4):476–478.
  11. Peixoto AB, da Cunha Caldas TMR, Dulgheroff FF, Martins WP, Araujo Júnior E. Fetal biometric parameters: Reference charts for a non-selected risk population from Uberaba, Brazil. J Ultrason. 2017;17(68):23–29.
  12. Blondel B, Coulm B, Bonnet C, Goffinet F, Le Ray C, National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys. Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016: Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46(10):701–713.
  13. Baños N, Migliorelli F, Posadas E, Ferreri J, Palacio M. Definition of Failed Induction of Labor and Its Predictive Factors: Two Unsolved Issues of an Everyday Clinical Situation. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2015;38(3):161–169.
  14. Bila J, Plesinac S, Vidakovic S, Spremovic S, Terzic M, Dotlic J, et al. Clinical and ultrasonographic parameters in assessment of labor induction success in nulliparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(23):3990–3997.
  15. Khalifa MA, Abbas AM, Gaber MA, Salah M. Bishop score versus transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length in predicting successful labor induction in post-term pregnancy: prospective cohort study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7(11):4646.
  16. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;17(5):315–322.
  17. Park KH. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement in predicting failed labor induction and cesarean delivery for failure to progress in nulliparous women. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22(4):722–727.
  18. Bajpai N, Bhakta R, Kumar P, Rai L, Hebbar S. Manipal Cervical Scoring System by Transvaginal Ultrasound in Predicting Successful Labour Induction. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(5):QC04-09.
  19. 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;334(9):567–572.
  20. Okitsu O, Mimura T, Nakayama T, Aono T. Early prediction of preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992;2(6):402–409.
  21. Bartha JL, Romero-Carmona R, Martínez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(2):155–159.
  22. Keepanasseril A, Suri V, Bagga R, Aggarwal N. A new objective scoring system for the prediction of successful induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32(2):145–147.
  23. Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(2):199–204.
  24. Ancel J, Huissoud C. [Ultrasonographic score for predicting vaginal delivery within 24h of induction: a pilot study]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015;43(3):256–261.
  25. Carseldine WJ, Phipps H, Zawada SF, Campbell NT, Ludlow JP, Krishnan SY, et al. Does occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour increase the operative delivery rate? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53(3):265–270.
  26. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Howard R, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasonographic occiput position in early labour in the prediction of caesarean section. BJOG. 2004;111(6):532–536.
  27. Verhoeven CJM, Rückert MEPF, Opmeer BC, Pajkrt E, Mol BWJ. Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict mode of delivery: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(1):9–13.
  28. Son GH, Kim JH, Kwon JY, Kim YH, Park YW. Risk factors for cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;76(4):254–259.
  29. Prado CA de C, Araujo Júnior E, Duarte G, Quintana SM, Tonni G, Cavalli R de C, et al. Predicting success of labor induction in singleton term pregnancies by combining maternal and ultrasound variables. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(21):3511–3518.
  30. Kim SN, Park KH, Jung HJ, Hong JS, Shin DM, Kang WS. Clinical and sonographic parameters at 37 weeks’ gestation for predicting the risk of primary Cesarean delivery in nulliparous women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(4):486–492.