PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2014; 31(09): 745-752
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1359721
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Impact of Cervical Effacement and Fetal Station on Progress during the First Stage of Labor: A Biexponential Model

Maria M. E. Quincy
1   Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Chunhua Weng
2   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Steven L. Shafer
3   Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Richard M. Smiley
3   Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Pamela D. Flood
1   Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
4   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Fadi G. Mirza
5   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, New York
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

28. August 2013

19. September 2013

Publikationsdatum:
11. Dezember 2013 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To develop a model that uses cervical effacement, fetal station, and parity to predict progress during the first stage of labor.

Study Design This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of 1,128 parturients delivering after 34 weeks. Timed cervical exams from each patient were fit with a biexponential model. Methods for consideration of fetal station, cervical effacement and parity were developed and validated.

Results The biexponential model fit the data in an unbiased manner with a median absolute prediction error of 1.1 cm. Although nulliparous women had slower active labor, they did not differ from multiparous women in their rate of latent labor or the cervical dilation at which they transitioned to active labor. In addition, nulliparous women began laboring with a more effaced cervix (45 vs. 31%) and lower fetal station (–2.8 vs. –3.2).

Conclusion We validated a biexponential model for labor progress using a large mixed parity cohort. We demonstrated that parity and initial fetal station add important clinical information that can be used to make a labor model more accurate. As such, parity and fetal station can be utilized in such structural models to predict normal labor progress and potentially identify abnormalities in labor progress.

Keywords

cervical dilation - cervical effacement - fetal station - labor - parity
 

  • References

  • 1 Denk CE, Kruse LK, Jain NJ. Surveillance of cesarean section deliveries, New Jersey, 1999-2004. Birth 2006; 33 (3) 203-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Say L, Pattinson RC, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality: the prevalence of severe acute maternal morbidity (near miss). Reprod Health 2004; 1 (1) 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Devine PC. Obstetric hemorrhage. Semin Perinatol 2009; 33 (2) 76-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Oyelese Y, Ananth CV. Postpartum hemorrhage: epidemiology, risk factors, and causes. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 53 (1) 147-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Oyelese Y, Scorza WE, Mastrolia R, Smulian JC. Postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2007; 34 (3) 421-441 , x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Debiec J, Conell-Price J, Evansmith J, Shafer SL, Flood P. Mathematical modeling of the pain and progress of the first stage of nulliparous labor. Anesthesiology 2009; 111 (5) 1093-1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Friedman EA. Labor in multiparas; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1956; 8 (6) 691-703
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Friedman EA, Kroll BH. Computer analysis of labour progression. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1969; 76 (12) 1075-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (4) 705-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J, Dwight R, Spong C. Williams Obstetrics. . New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Friedman EA. Labor: Clinical Evaluation and Management. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Miller RS, Smiley RM, Daniel D , et al. Beta-2 adrenoceptor genotype and progress in term and late preterm active labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (2) e1-e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 R Development Core Team; R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. , Available at: http://www.R-project.org/; Accessed October 27, 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Cunningham F, Gant NF, Leveno KJ , et al. Williams Obstetrics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Gabbe SG, Simpson JL, Niebyl JR, Galan HL. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Greenberg MB, Cheng YW, Sullivan M, Norton ME, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. Does length of labor vary by maternal age?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (4) e1-e7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zhang J, Bricker L, Wray S, Quenby S. Poor uterine contractility in obese women. BJOG 2007; 114 (3) 343-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Savitz DA, Siega-Riz AM. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104 (5 Pt 1) 943-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Reitman E, Conell-Price J, Evansmith J , et al. β2-adrenergic receptor genotype and other variables that contribute to labor pain and progress. Anesthesiology 2011; 114 (4) 927-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Suzuki R, Horiuchi S, Ohtsu H. Evaluation of the labor curve in nulliparous Japanese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (3) e1-e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hendricks CH, Brenner WE, Kraus G. Normal cervical dilatation pattern in late pregnancy and labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1970; 106 (7) 1065-1082
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Friedman EA. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954; 68 (6) 1568-1575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar