Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · AJP Rep 2018; 08(03): e184-e191
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1669409
Case Report
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Uterine Monitoring Techniques from Patients' and Users' Perspectives

Kirsten M. J. Thijssen
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands
2   Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
,
Marion W. C. Vlemminx
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands
2   Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
,
Michelle E. M. H. Westerhuis
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands
,
Jeanne P. Dieleman
3   MMC Academy, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands
,
M. Beatrijs Van der Hout-Van der Jagt
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands
2   Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
,
S. Guid Oei
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands
2   Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

26 March 2018

21 July 2018

Publication Date:
14 September 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate preferences from patients and users on 3 uterine monitoring techniques, during labor.

Study Design Women in term labor were simultaneously monitored with the intrauterine pressure catheter, the external tocodynamometer, and the electrohysterograph. Postpartum, these women filled out a questionnaire evaluating their preferences and important aspects. Nurses completed a questionnaire evaluating users' preferences.

Results Of all 52 participating women, 80.8% preferred the electrohysterograph, 17.3% the intrauterine pressure catheter and 1.9% the external tocodynamometer. For these women, the electrohysterograph scored best regarding application and presence during labor (p < 0.001). Most important aspects were “least likely to harm” and “least discomfort”. Of 57 nurses, 40.4% preferred the electrohysterograph, 35.1% the external tocodynamometer, and 24.6% had no preference, or replied that their preference is subject to situation and patient.

Conclusion Patients prefer the electrohysterograph over the external tocodynamometer and the intrauterine pressure catheter, while healthcare providers report ambiguous results.

Keywords

cardiotocography (MeSH) - electrohysterograph - external tocodynamometer - intrauterine pressure catheter - uterine contraction (MeSH) - uterine monitoring (MeSH) - patient preference (MeSH) - user preference

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Bakker JJH, Janssen PF, van Halem K. , et al. Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour. (Review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (08) CD006947
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bakker JJ, Verhoeven CJ, Janssen PF. , et al. Outcomes after internal versus external tocodynamometry for monitoring labor. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (04) 306-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Euliano TY, Nguyen MT, Darmanjian S. , et al. Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208 (01) 66.e1-66.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hadar E, Biron-Shental T, Gavish O, Raban O, Yogev Y. A comparison between electrical uterine monitor, tocodynamometer and intra uterine pressure catheter for uterine activity in labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28 (12) 1367-1374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vlemminx MWC, Thijssen KMJ, Bajlekov GI, Dieleman JP, Van Der Hout-Van Der Jagt MB, Oei SG. Electrohysterography for uterine monitoring during term labour compared to external tocodynamometry and intra-uterine pressure catheter. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 215: 197-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Panelli D, Teplick F, McCarthy M, Hebert S. Comparing methods to secure external fetal-monitoring devices. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2014; 39 (01) 41-47 , quiz 48–49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bakker PCAM, Zikkenheimer M, van Geijn HP. The quality of intrapartum uterine activity monitoring. J Perinat Med 2008; 36 (03) 197-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Devedeux D, Marque C, Mansour S, Germain G, Duchêne J. Uterine electromyography: a critical review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169 (06) 1636-1653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tam HW, Webster JG. Minimizing electrode motion artifact by skin abrasion. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1977; 24 (02) 134-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bakker PCAM, Van Rijswijk S, van Geijn HP. Uterine activity monitoring during labor. J Perinat Med 2007; 35 (06) 468-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wilmink FA, Wilms FF, Heydanus R, Mol BWJ, Papatsonis DNM. Fetal complications after placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter: a report of two cases and review of the literature. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2008; 21 (12) 880-883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rothman KJ, Boice JD. Epidemiological Analysis with a Programmable Calculator. USA: NIH Publication; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1927; 22 (158) 209-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fetal monitoring. Guidelines; perinatology. Dutch Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology. Version 30. 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ayres-de-Campos D, Spong C, Chandraharan E. FIGO consensus guideline on intrapartum fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131( (01) 13-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin number 49, December 2003: dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (49) 1445-1454
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Namm JP. Primum Non Nocere: Ethical Implications in Medical Innovation. Am J Bioeth 2016; 16 (07) 72-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rood KM. Complications associated with insertion of intrauterine pressure catheters: an unusual case of uterine hypertonicity and uterine perforation resulting in fetal distress after insertion of an intrauterine pressure catheter. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2012; 2012: 517461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Euliano TY, Nguyen MT, Darmanjian S, Busowski JD, Euliano N, Gregg AR. Monitoring uterine activity during labor: clinician interpretation of electrohysterography versus intrauterine pressure catheter and tocodynamometry. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (09) 831-838
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cohen W, Hayes-Gill B, Hassan S. , et al. Accuracy and reliability of uterine contraction identification using abdominal surface electrodes. Clin Med Insights Womens Health 2012; 5: 65-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Euliano T, Skowronski M, Marossero D, Shuster J, Edwards R. Prediction of intrauterine pressure waveform from transabdominal electrohysterography. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19 (12) 811-816
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Simpson KR, James DC. Effects of oxytocin-induced uterine hyperstimulation during labor on fetal oxygen status and fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (01) 34.e1-34.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bakker PCAM, van Geijn HP. Uterine activity: implications for the condition of the fetus. J Perinat Med 2008; 36 (01) 30-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cohen WR, Schifrin BS. Medical negligence lawsuits relating to labor and delivery. Clin Perinatol 2007; 34 (02) 345-360 , vii–viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lawrence A, Lewis L, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T, Styles C. Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003934.pub4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Reinhard J, Hayes-Gill BR, Schiermeier S. , et al. Uterine activity monitoring during a multi-centre, blinded two-way trial of external tocodynamometry against electrohysterography. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2011; 215 (05) 199-204
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster; 2003
    Google Scholar