第一产程活跃期经会阴超声对初产妇分娩方式的预测价值

魏玉新; 梁舒雯; 陈醇; 李秀玲; 朱姝; 颜芳

doi:10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20220908

第一产程活跃期经会阴超声对初产妇分娩方式的预测价值

doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20220908

云南省第一人民医院/昆明理工大学附属医院产科，云南昆明　650032

基金项目: 云南省科技厅-昆明医科大学应用基础研究联合专项基金资助项目[2019FE001（-290），2019FE001（-126），202001AY070001-123]；云南省医疗卫生单位内设研究机构基金资助项目（2018NS0239，2018NS0240）；云南省妇产疾病临床医学研究中心基金资助项目（202002AA100199，2022YJZX-FC19）

详细信息

作者简介:
魏玉新（1982～），女，云南建水人，在读硕士研究生，主治医师，主要从事产前超声诊断工作

通讯作者:
颜芳，E-mail：khyanfang@vip.sina.com

中图分类号: R714.3
计量
- 文章访问数: 3251
- HTML全文浏览量: 2386
- PDF下载量: 17
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-05-07
- 网络出版日期: 2022-09-07
- 刊出日期: 2022-09-29

Prediction of Delivery Mode by Transperineal Ultrasound during the Active Phase of the First Stage Labor

Dept. of Obstetrics，The 1st People’s Hospital of Yunnan & Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Kunming University of Science and Technology，Kunming Yunnan 650032，China

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨第一产程活跃期时产程进展角（angle of progression，AOP）、胎头下降距离（progression distance，PD）、胎头至耻骨联合距离（head-symphysis distance，HSD）等产程进展参数对分娩方式的预测价值。方法选取2020年7月到2021年12月在云南省第一人民医院产科经阴道试产的初产妇作为研究对象，在第一产程活跃期测量其AOP、PD、HSD，比较阴道分娩组与剖宫组之间上述参数的差异，应用ROC曲线分析各产程进展参数对孕妇分娩方式的预测价值。结果阴道分娩组孕妇在第一产程活跃期AOP及PD明显大于剖宫产组，[（141.09±9.87）° vs （122.84±10.70）°]、[（4.28±0.48） cm vs （3.18±0.83） cm]，而HSD阴道分娩组则明显小于剖宫产组[（1.42±0.40） cm vs（ 2.18±0.64） cm]，差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.001）；ROC曲线分析显示，AOP、PD、HSD预测阴道分娩的曲线下面积分别为0.892、0.875、0.840，差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.001）。结论对经阴道试产初产妇，第1产程活跃期AOP、PD及HSD的测量对分娩方式具有预测价值。
- 超声 /
- 产程 /
- 分娩方式 /
- 产程进展角 /
- 胎头下降距离 /
- 胎头至耻骨联合距离
Abstract: Objective To investigate the value of angle of progression progression （AOP）, fetal head descent distance （PD） and fetal head to pubic symphysis （HSD） in predicting the mode of delivery during the active phase of the first stage of labor. Methods The AOP, PD and HSD were measured at the active phase of the first stage of labor. The difference of these parameters was compared between the vaginal delivery group and the cesarean section group. Results The AOP and PD in vaginal delivery group were significantly higher than those in cesarean delivery group （141.09° ±9.87° vs 122.84° ±10.70° , 4.28 cm ± 0.48 cm vs 3.18 cm ± 0.83 cm）, while HSD in vaginal delivery group were significantly lower than that in cesarean delivery group （1.42 cm ± 0.40 cm vs 2.18 cm ± 0.64 cm）（P < 0.001）. The AUC of AOP, PD and HSD for predicting vaginal delivery was 0.892, 0.875 and 0.840, respectively, with statistical significance （P < 0.001）. Conclusion The measurement of AOP, PD and HSD in the active phase of the first stage of labor has the predictive value for the mode of delivery in nulliparous women.
- Ultrasound /
- Labor /
- Delivery mode /
- AOP /
- PD /
- HSD

HTML全文

图 1 经会阴超声测量

Figure 1. The measurement of AOP,PD and HSD by intrapartum translabial ultrasound A：AOP；B：PD；C：HSD。

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 AOP、PD、HSD预测阴道分娩的ROC曲线

Figure 2. The ROC curve of AOP、 and HSD for predicting vaginal delivery

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 阴道分娩组和剖宫产组之间一般情况的比较（$\bar x \pm s $）

Table 1. The difference of basic characteristics between the vaginal delivery group and the cesarean section group （$\bar x \pm s $）

临床特征	阴道分娩组	剖宫产组	t	P
年龄（岁）	28.67 ± 3.51	28.84 ± 4.12	−0.273	0.785
体重（kg）	67.90 ± 9.24	67.97 ± 6.78	−0.042	0.966
体重指数（kg/m²）	26.36 ± 3.40	26.93 ± 2.65	−1.021	0.309
胎儿头围（cm）	32.60 ± 1.17	33.02 ± 0.93	−2.234	0.027^*
出生体重（g）	3232 ± 396	3429 ± 378	−2.945	0.004^*
^* P < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 阴道分娩组和剖宫产组之间各产程进展参数的比较（$\bar x \pm s $）

Table 2. The difference of labor progression parameters between the vaginal delivery group and the cesarean section group （$\bar x \pm s $）

组别	AOP（°）	PD（cm）	HSD（cm）
阴道分娩组（n = 158）	141.09 ± 9.87	4.28 ± 0.48	1.42 ± 0.40
剖宫产组（n = 44）	122.84 ± 10.70	3.18 ± 0.83	2.18 ± 0.64
t	10.64	11.25	−9.69
P	< 0.001^*	< 0.001^*	< 0.001^*
^*P < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 产程进展参数对分娩方式（阴道分娩）的预测效能

Table 3. The value of these parameters in predicting the mode of delivery

产程进展参数	AUC	截断值	灵敏度（%）	特异度（%）	P	95%置信区间
产程进展参数	AUC	截断值	灵敏度（%）	特异度（%）	P	下限	上限
AOP	0.892	132.95°	80.4	86.4	< 0.001^*	0.833	0.951
PD	0.875	3.65 cm	90.5	68.2	< 0.001^*	0.816	0.934
HSD	0.840	1.75 cm	84.8	68.2	< 0.001^*	0.773	0.907
^*P < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(19)

[1]	Dupuis O,Silveira R,Zentner A,et al. Birth simulator:Reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists classification[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol,2005,192(3):868-874. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.028
[2]	Wiafe Y A,Whitehead B,Venables H,et al. The effectiveness of intrapartum ultrasonography in assessing cervical dilatation,head station and position:A systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Ultrasound,2016,24(4):222-232. doi: 10.1177/1742271X16673124
[3]	Ghi T,Eggebø T,Lees C,et al. ISUOG Practice guidelines:Intrapartum ultrasound[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2018,52(1):128-139. doi: 10.1002/uog.19072
[4]	Barbera A F,Pombar X,Perugino G,et al. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2009,33(3):313-319.
[5]	Bamberg C,Scheuermann S,Slowinski T,et al. Relationship between fetal head station established using an open magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the angle of progression determined by transperineal ultrasound[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2011,37(6):712-716. doi: 10.1002/uog.8944
[6]	Kahrs B H,Usman S,Ghi T,et al. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries:A multicenter,prospective cohort study[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol,2017,217(1):69.e1-69.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.009
[7]	Wiafe Y A,Whitehead B,Venables H,et al. Sonographic parameters for diagnosing fetal head engagement during labour[J]. Ultrasound,2018,26(1):16-21. doi: 10.1177/1742271X18755080
[8]	Eggebø T M,Hassan W A,Salvesen K Å,et al. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor:A two- center study[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2014,43(2):195-201. doi: 10.1002/uog.13210
[9]	Torkildsen E A,Salvesen K A,Eggebo T M. Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labour[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2011,37(6):702-708. doi: 10.1002/uog.8951
[10]	Kohls F,Brodowski L,Kuehnle E,et al. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound:A systematic analysis of the fetal head station in the first stage of labor[J]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol,2018,222(1):19-24. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-122242
[11]	Chor C M,Poon L,Leung T Y. Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med,2019,32(1):31-37. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1369946
[12]	Dall'Asta A,Angeli L,Masturzo B,et al. Prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery in nulliparous women with a prolonged second stage of labor:The value of intrapartum ultrasound[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol,2019,221(6):642.
[13]	Yonetani N,Yamamoto R,Murata M,et al. Prediction of time to delivery by transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2017,49(2):246-251. doi: 10.1002/uog.15944
[14]	Kasbaoui S,Séverac F,Aïssi G,et al. Predicting the difficulty of operative vaginal delivery by ultrasound measurement of fetal head station[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol,2017,216(5):507.
[15]	Sainz J A,García-Mejido J A,Aquise A,et al. A simple model to predict the complicated operative vaginal deliveries using vacuum or forceps[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol,2019,220(2):193.e1-193.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.035
[16]	Bibbo C,Rouse C E,Cantonwine D E,et al. Angle of progression on ultrasound in the second stage of labor and spontaneous vaginal delivery[J]. Am J Perinatol,2018,35(4):413-420.
[17]	Ghi T,Contro E,Farina A,et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in monitoring progression of labor:A reproducibility study[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2010,36(4):500-506. doi: 10.1002/uog.7752
[18]	田雪叶,韩蓁,全萌,等. 经会阴三维超声监测产程进展各参数的可重复性研究[J]. 西安交通大学学报:医学版,2018,39(6):5.
[19]	中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组. 新产程标准及处理的专家共识(2014)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志,2014,49(7):486. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2014.07.002

相关文章(20)

[1]	朱丽波, 许艳花, 李金粉, 胡雪, 鲁春燕, 陆昆, 段留艳, 李焕义. 超声引导下经外周置入中心静脉导管在新生儿血管通路穿刺困难中的临床应用, 昆明医科大学学报. doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20230415
[2]	孟春梅, 叶珂帆, 何云渝, 任冬燕, 吴晓梅, 张义凤. 经腹联合阴道超声对剖宫产瘢痕妊娠的疗效评估, 昆明医科大学学报. doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20230113
[3]	魏辉明, 李治贵, 王玲玲, 曹霖, 晏毅. 体位对老年患者腰椎间隙黄韧带长度超声测值的影响, 昆明医科大学学报. doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20220422
[4]	陆健斐, 卜锐, 刘小艳, 张幸, 丁昱, 章然. 常规超声与超声造影对甲状腺乳头状癌患者侧颈区淋巴结转移的术前诊断效能, 昆明医科大学学报. doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20221214
[5]	陆越, 朱钰, 田扬. 不同分娩方式与新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征胸部X线影像分级差异分析, 昆明医科大学学报. doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20221012
[6]	敖梦瑶, 黄燕玲, 陆永萍, 王新国, 李祥碧. 引起脐带胎盘插入口异常相关因素的超声观察及妊娠结局影响, 昆明医科大学学报. doi: 10.12259/j.issn.2095-610X.S20211229
[7]	张键, 丁云川. 血流向量成像技术评价房间隔缺损的左室流场变化特点及能量损耗变化规律的研究进展, 昆明医科大学学报.
[8]	李洪英. 气囊仿生助产832例临床应用分析, 昆明医科大学学报.
[9]	海赛苹, 杨丽春. 甲状腺多发结节合并甲状腺癌的超声误诊分析, 昆明医科大学学报.
[10]	封俊. 肝脏血管平滑肌脂肪瘤的影像表现及误诊分析, 昆明医科大学学报.
[11]	杨阳. 超声规范化检查对甲状腺结节良恶性质判定的临床价值, 昆明医科大学学报.
[12]	何维曜臻. 妊娠合并人类免疫缺陷病毒感染与正常妊娠胎儿超声生长参数比较, 昆明医科大学学报.
[13]	王光. 三种检查方式对输尿管结石所致急性肾绞痛诊断价值的比较, 昆明医科大学学报.
[14]	赖晓岚. 足月头位胎儿脐带绕颈212例临床分析, 昆明医科大学学报.
[15]	罗静. 妊娠期肝内胆汁瘀积症血清胆汁酸值与胎儿窘迫的相关性分析, 昆明医科大学学报.
[16]	黄燕玲. 晚孕期胎儿迟发畸形的超声观察, 昆明医科大学学报.
[17]	吕燕. 椎管内麻醉分娩镇痛对产程和分娩结果影响的临床观察, 昆明医科大学学报.
[18]	夏要友. 肠道憩室的超声表现及鉴别诊断11例临床分析, 昆明医科大学学报.
[19]	陆健斐. 超声造影诊断原发性输尿管癌1例, 昆明医科大学学报.
[20]	赵兴元. 超声诊断功能失调性子宫出血的临床价值, 昆明医科大学学报.