Intranatal ultrasonography is considered an auxiliary method, but its use may be of some importance in assessing the clinical situation and in making decisions on the tactics of patient management. This method is recommended for determining the position and presentation of the fetus, in case of difficulty with palpation, to determine the fetal heartbeat, if it is impossible or difficult to do it in another way, in the presence of bloody discharge from the genital tract to determine the previa or premature placental abruption. Intranatal ultrasonography is important to determine the tactics of further labor management after the birth of the first fetus in multiple pregnancies. However, there are also conflicting positions. It is believed that intrapartum ultrasonography is inappropriate and uninformative for determining the fetal body weight in labor, although it can be used to control the fetal movement through the birth canal; to determine the functional state of the fetus in childbirth using Doppler, although in some cases this is the only way to find out about the state of the fetus; to detect collisions and entanglement with the umbilical cord, although this is an important point in twins or in fetal distress. However, the informativeness of intrapartum ultrasound has not been sufficiently studied and can be used in clinical practice only after conducting scientific research, especially in cases of assessing the state of the scar on the uterus, to predict the results of induction of labor by measuring the length of the cervix before labor induction; to assess the progress of the head in the second stage of labor in order to choose the method of delivery (through the vaginal birth canal or cesarean section), as well as to predict the estimated time of completion of the second stage of labor. The introduction of the principles of evidence-based medicine in ultrasound diagnostics in obstetric and gynecological practice allows developing modern differentiated approaches to antenatal monitoring in the presence of high perinatal risk factors, however, there is extremely insufficient data for the use of intrapartum ultrasound diagnostics. Currently, the use of ultrasonography in childbirth is presented by the International Society for Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology in the form of guidelines. Conclusion. The use of intrapartum ultrasonography requires additional equipment of maternity wards with equipment, as well as training of specialists to obtain the necessary qualifications. However, the introduction of ultrasound monitoring of the course of labor in clinical practice can be an effective way to reduce the level of perinatal pathology and the financial costs associated with nursing newborns

Keywords: intrapartum ultrasonography, labor management, fetal position and presentation

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 291K

1. Prykhodko AM, Romanov AYu, Baev OR. Ultrazvukovaya otsenka polozhenyya golovky ploda v rodakh [Ultrasound assessment of the position of the fetal head during labor]. Akusherstvo y Gynekologyya. 2019; 3: 5-9. [Russian]
2. Iversen JK, Eggebo TM. Increased diagnostic accuracy of fetal head station by use of transabdominal ultrasound. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2019; 98(6): 805-806. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13529
3. Safonova YN. Vozmozhnost ekhografycheskykh yssledovanyy v predyktsyy perynatalnykh oslozhnenyy pry prolongyrovannoy y perenoshennoy beremennosty [Possibility of echographic studies in predicting perinatal complications in prolonged and post-term pregnancy]. Medicine (Almaty). 2016; 8(170): 45-49. [Russian]
4. Usman S, Kahrs BH, Wilhelm-Benartzi C, Hassan WA, Barton H, Salvesen KA, et al. Prediction of mode of delivery using the first ultrasound-based "intrapartum app". Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2019; 221(2): 163-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.019
5. Benediktsdottir S, Salvesen KA, Hjartardottir H, Eggebo TM. Reproducibility and acceptability of ultrasound measurements of head-perineum distance. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2018; 97(1): 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13251
6. Veropotvelyan NP, Rusak NS. Prenatalnaya dyagnostyka ystynnogo uzla pupovyny s prymenenyem obemnoy ekhografyy. [Prenatal diagnosis of a true umbilical cord node using volumetric echography]. Prenatalnaya dyagnostyka. 2014; 13(2): 149-153. [Russian]
7. Hayachi RH. Ultrasound uses in obstetrics. Clin Perinatol. 1983; 10: 253-261.
8. Iliescu DG, Sorop-Florea M, Patru CL, Zorila LG, Tudorache S, Coleta E, et al. Ultrasound in Labor - from "Gold Standard" to "Bad Practice". Eds by S Vladareanu, C Marginean, R Vladareanu. 2017. p. 252-7.
9. Kim J, Kim S, Jeon S, Jung S. A longitudinal study investigating cervical changes during labor using a wireless ultrasound device. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018; 31(13): 1787-1791. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1329292
10. Bultez T, Quibel T, Bouhanna P, Popowski T, Resche-Rigon M, Rozenberg P. Angle of fetal head progression measured using transperineal ultrasound as a predictive factor of vacuum extraction failure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48(1): 86-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14951
11. Shetty J, Aahir V, Pandey D, Adiga P, Kamath A. Fetal head position during the first stage of labor: comparison between vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasound. ISRN Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 2014: 314617. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/314617
12. Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, Simone T, Andre D, Rene-Charles R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 123: 193-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.04.009
13. Sherer DM, Onyeije CI, Bernstein PS, Kovacs P, Manning FA. Utilization of real-time ultrasound on labor and delivery in an active academic teaching hospital. Am J Perinatol. 1999; 16: 303-307. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-993876
14. Ghi T, Eggebø T, Lees C, Kalache K, Rozenberg P, Youssef A, et al. ISUOG intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19072
15. Rubakhova NN, Dyadychkyna OV, Vasyleva LN. Vozmozhnosty ultrazvukovoy yntranatalnoy dyagnostyky [Possibilities of ultrasound intranatal diagnostics.]. Okhrana materynstva y detstva. 2019; 1: 57-62. [Russian]
16. Myftakhutdynova DK, Teregulova LE, Galymova YR. Protokol ultrazvukovogo yssledovanyya v rodakh [Childbirth ultrasound protocol]. Praktycheskaya medytsyna. 2015; 4(1): 143-146. [Russian]
17. Wiafe YA, Whitehead B, Venables H, Nakua EK. The effectiveness of intrapartum ultrasonography in assessing cervical dilatation, head station and position: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound. 2016; 24(4): 222-32.
18. Eggebø TM. Ultrasound is the future diagnostic tool in active labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41(4): 361-363. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12417
19. Bligh LN, Alsolai A, Greer RM, Kumar S. Screening for adverse perinatal outcomes: Uterine artery doppler, cerebroplacental ratio and estimated fetal weight in low-risk women at term. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018; 31(24): 3301-3307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1369518
20. Ghi T, Dall'Asta A, Masturzo B, Tassis B, Martinelli M, Volpe N, et al. Randomised Italian Sonography for occiput POSition Trial Ante vacuum (RISPOSTA). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52(6): 699-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19091
21. Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, Rizzo N, Pelusi G, Pilu G. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 33(3): 331-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6313
22. Barbera AF, Pombar X, Peruginoj G, Lezotte DC, Hobbins JC. A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 33(3): 313-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6329
23. Kasbaoui S, Séverac F, Aïssi G, Gaudineau A, Lecointre L, Akladios C, et al. Predicting the difficulty of operative vaginal delivery by ultrasound measurement of fetal head station. Am J Obstet.Gynecol. 2017; 216(5): 507.e1-507-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.007
24. Ali J, Hebbar S. Ultrasound assessment of foetal Head–Perineum distance prior to induction of labour as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2019; 69(2): 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1120-x
25. Tse WT, Chaemsaithong P, Chan WWY, Kwan AHW, Huang JH, Appiah K, et al. Labor progress determined by ultrasound is different in women requiring cesarean delivery from those who experience a vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 221(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.040
26. Chor CM, Poon LCY, Leung TY. Prediction of labor outcome using serial transperineal ultrasound in the first stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.2019; 32(1): 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1369946
27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12439
28. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 19: 258-263. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00641.x
29. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 19: 264-268. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00656.x
30. Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, Youssef A, Torkildsen EA, Lindtjorn E, et al. Descent of fetal head during active pushing: secondary analysis of prospective cohort study investigating ultrasound examination before operative vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 54(4): 524-529. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20348
31. Erlik U, Weissmann-Brenner A, Kivilevitch Z, Moran O, Kees S, Karp H, et al. Head progression distance during the first stage of labor as a predictor for delivery outcome. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020; 33(3): 380-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1493723
32. Malvasi A, Marinelli E, Ghi T, Zaami S. ISUOG Practice Guidelines for intrapartum ultrasound: application in obstetric practice and medicolegal issues. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2019; 54(3): 421-425.
33. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20399.
34. Ghi T, Bellussi F, Azzarone C, Krsmanovic J, Franchi L, Youssef A, et al. The "occiput-spine angle": a new sonographic index of fetal head deflexion during the first stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.020
35. Bellussi F, Ghi T, Youssef A, Salsi G, Giorgetta F, Parma D, et al. The use of intrapartum ultrasound to diagnose malpositions and cephalic malpresentations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(6): 633-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.025
36. Maged AM, Soliman EM, Abdellatif AA, Nabil M, Said OI, Mohesen MN, et al. Measurement of the fetal occiput-spine angle during the first stage of labor as predictor of the progress and outcome of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32(14): 2332-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1432589
37. Verhoeven CJ, Ruckert ME, Opmeer BC, Pajkrt E, Mol BW. Ultrasonographic fetal head position to predict mode of delivery: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 40: 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10102
38. Gardberg M, Leonova Y, Laakkonen E. Malpresentations - impact on mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011; 90: 540-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01105.x
39. Lau WL, Leung WC, Chin R. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound demonstrating brow presentation during the second stage of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 107: 62-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.024
40. Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W. Computed tomography and ultrasound to determine fetal head station. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 49(2): 279-280. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17291
41. Malanyna EN, Davydyan LYu, Kasymova DR, Khaytova DT. Vozmozhnosty transvagynalnoy ultrazvukovoy otsenky sheyky matky v prognoze prezhdevremennykh rodov [Possibilities of transvaginal ultrasound assessment of the cervix in the prognosis of preterm labor]. Sovremennye problemy nauky y obrazovanyya. 2013; 3. [Russian]. Available from: http://www.science-education.ru/ ru/article/view?id=8827
42. Frick A, Kostiv V, Vojtassakova D, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Comparison of different methods of measuring angle of progression in prediction of labor outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 55(3): 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.21913
43. Malvasi A, Barbera A, Ghi T, Tinelli A. Lateral asynclitism: introduction of a new terminolgy associated to specific fetal position of the fetal head diagnosed by ultrasound in the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28 (15): 1839-1841. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.969237
44. Ghi T, Bellussi F, Pilu G. Sonographic diagnosis of lateral asynclitism: a new subtype of fetal head malposition as a main determinant of early labor arrest. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 45(2): 229-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13385
45. Kamel R, Youssef A. How reliable is fetal occiput and spine position assessment prior to induction of labor? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53(4): 535-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19169
46. Perlman S, Kivilevitch Z, Moran O, Katorza E, Kees S, Achiron R, et al. Correlation between clinical fetal head station and sonographic angle of progression during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018; 31 (21): 2905-2910. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1359533
47. Ramphul M, Ooi PV, Burke G, Kennelly MM, Said SA, Montgomery AA, et al. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG. 2014; 121: 1029-1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12810
48. Kameyama S, Sato A, Miura H, Kumagai J, Sato N, Shimizu D, et al. Prediction of spontaneous vaginal delivery by transperineal ultrasound performed just after full cervical dilatation is determined. J Med Ultrason. 2016; 43(2): 243-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-015-0681-x
49. Magnard C, Perrot M, Fanget C, Paviot-Trombert B, Raia-Barjat T, Chauleur C. Instrumental delivery with perineum-fetal head distance >55 MM on ultrasound. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2016; 44(2): 82-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.12.003
50. Gilboa Y, Frenkel TI, Schlesinger Y, Rousseau S, Hamiel D, Achiron R, et al. Visual biofeedback using transperineal ultrasound in second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18962
51. Chaemsaithong P, Kwan AHW, Tse WT, Lim WT, Chan WWY, Chong KC, et al. Factors that affect ultrasound-determined labor progress in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.236
52. Malvasi A, Barbera A, Di Vagno G, Gimovsky A, Berghella V, Ghi T, et al. Asynclitism: a literature review of an often forgotten clinical condition. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 28(16): 1890-4. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.972925
53. Popowski T, Porcher R, Fort J, Javoise S, Rozenberg P. Influence of ultrasound determination of fetal head position on mode of delivery: a pragmatic randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 46(5): 520-525. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14785