Gurcan TURKYILMAZ, Sebnem Erol TURKYILMAZ, Emircan ERTÜRK, Onur KARAASLAN

Does Cervical Length Predict the Successful Labor Induction in Term Nulliparous Women Who Had Unfavorable Cervix?

The aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of cervical length (CL) measurement in the result of labor induction in term nulliparous women who had a strict cervix. A total of 78 pregnancies were evaluated prospectively. Dinoprostone ovule was used for the induction of labor in all cases. Low dose oxytocin was administered for augmentation of the labor. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 24. A p-value

PDF

___

1. Cole RA, Howie PW, Magnaughton MC. Elective induction of labor. A randomized prospective trial. Lancet 1975; 1: 767-770.

2. Sue-A-Quan AK, Hannah ME, Cohen MM, Foster GA, Liston RM. Effect of labor induction on rates of stillbirth and cesarean section in postterm pregnancies. CMAJ 1999; 160: 1145-1149.

3. Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003

4. Arulkumararan S, Gibb DM, Tambyraja RL, Heng SH, Ratnam SS. Failed induction of labor. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 25: 190-193.

5. Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A. Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27: 309-311.

6. Sanches-Ramos L. Induction of Labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2005; 32: 181-200.

7. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: Final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003; 52:1-113.

8. Hendrix NW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC, Magann EF, Devoe LD. Bishop score: A poor diagnostic test to predict failed induction versus vaginal delivery. South Med J 1998; 91: 248-252.

9. Kehila M, Bougmiza I, Ben Hamıd R, Wabere A, Mahjoub S. Bishop score vs. cervical ultrasound length in the prediction of cervical ripening success and vaginal delivery in nulliparous women. Minerva Ginecol 2015; 67: 499-505.

10. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Antsaklis A. Sonographic cervical length measurement before labor induction in term nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther 2006; 21: 34-38.

11. Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, Jeong EH, Jung HJ, Oh KJ. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 198-204.

12. Keepanasseril A, Suri V, Bagga R, Aggarwal N. Pre induction sonographic assessment of the cervix in the prediction of successful induction of labor in nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 47: 389-393.

13. Cubal A, Carvalho J, Ferreira MJ, Rodrigues G, Carmo O.D. Value of Bishop score and ultrasound cervical length measurement in the prediction of cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2013; 39: 1391-1396.

14. Roman H, Verspyck E, Vercoustre L, et al. Does ultrasound examination when the cervix is unfavorable improve the prediction of failed labor induction?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 357-362.

15. S.M. Rane, R Guirgis, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 538-549.

16. Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, Baytur Y. Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index, and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(3):357–362

17. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 29: 568-573.

18. Verhoeven CJ, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, van der Post JA, Mol BW. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting the outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 500-508.

19. Kehila M, Abouda HS, Sahbi K, Cheour H, Chanoufi MB. Ultrasound cervical length measurement in the prediction of labor induction outcome. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 2016; 9(2): 127-131