4.6 Article

Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 437-440

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/uog.103

Keywords

fetal position; instrumental delivery; ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the accuracy of intrapartum transvaginal digital examination in defining the position of the fetal bead before instrumental delivery. Patients and Methods In 64 singleton pregnancies undergoing instrumental delivery the fetal bead position was determined by transvaginal digital examination by the attending obstetrician. Immediately after or before the clinical examination, the fetal bead position was determined by transabdominal ultrasound by a trained sonographer who was not aware of the clinical findings. The digital examination was considered to be correct if the fetal bead position was within +/- 45degrees of the ultrasound finding. The accuracy of the digital examination was examined in relation to maternal and fetal characteristics. Results Digital examination failed to define the correct fetal bead position in 17 (26.6%) cases. In 12 of 17 (70.6%) errors the difference was greater than or equal to90degrees and in five (29.4%) the difference was between 45degrees and 90degrees. The accuracy of vaginal digital examination was 83% for occiput-anterior and 54% for occiput-lateral + occiput-posterior positions. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated significant independent contributions in explaining the variance in the accuracy of vaginal examination for the station of the fetal bead, the position of the fetal head and the experience of the examining obstetrician. Conclusions Digital examination during instrumental delivery fails to identify the correct fetal bead position in about one quarter of cases. Copyright (C) 2003 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available