Ultrasound is better tolerated than vaginal examination in and before labour.

BACKGROUND: Intrapartum ultrasound has been proposed as a method of assessing labour progress but its acceptability has not been comprehensively assessed. AIMS: We evaluated the acceptability of intrapartum ultrasound in women having vaginal examination (VE) and ultrasound (US) assessment (transabdominal (TA) and transperineal (TP)) prior to delivery, with and without regional analgesia (RA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women at 24-42 weeks gestation were included in a prospective observational cohort study. The acceptability of digital VE and TP US were assessed pre- and post-examination using the modified validated Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire. Acceptability scores ranged 6-36 (6 being most and 36 being least positive) in six domains: positive-trust and relax, negative-harmful to baby, worrying, painful, intrusive. RESULTS: Of 119 women recruited, 104 completed both pre- and post-assessment questionnaires. Eighty-nine per cent of women were nulliparous with median gestation 40 + 2 weeks (25-42+1 ). Thirty-two per cent had RA before assessment, 91% in total. The combined acceptability scores of both negative and positive experiences (6 = most acceptable, 36 = least acceptable) for VE and US pre-assessment were 15 and 7 respectively (P < 0.0001: Mann-Whitney U-test). VE was associated with less positive / more negative domain scoring post-assessment 12 and 6, respectively (P < 0.0001). Although RA made no difference to the perceived experience pre-VE (P = 0.9), post-VE, women with RAs considered VEs more acceptable than those without RA (P = 0.0022). CONCLUSION(S): This is the first study to comprehensively assess the acceptability of VE and intrapartum US. US assessment prior to delivery is more acceptable than VE. RA ameliorated the negative experience of the VE post-assessment.

The views of pregnant women, midwives, and a women's panel on intrapartum ultrasound research: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is increasingly used in labour; however, little data exist on attitudes to its use. We sought to analyse and compare the views of pregnant women, midwives, and a women's panel on the value and use of ultrasound in labour. METHODS: Focus groups involving a short presentation on ultrasound, questionnaire, and a question and answer session were held with groups of pregnant women, midwives at 2 inner-city maternity units, and a RCOG online Women's Panel. Data were collected on attitudes to vaginal examination, ultrasound, predicting Caesarean section, and the utility of a digital representation of labour. RESULTS: Twenty one midwives and 29 service users (19 pregnant women and 10 women's panel members) participated. Significantly more service users saw positive value in intrapartum ultrasound (P = 0.0005) and predicting Caesarean section (P = 0.03) than midwives. The majority of both groups - 72% (20/29) and 62% (13/21), respectively - thought women would want a digital representation of their labour, with the most popular format being on a mobile phone (56%, 20/36). CONCLUSIONS: Service users were most and midwives least positive about ultrasound versus vaginal examination, indicating divergence between midwives' perspective of women's need to understand risk and desire to know about their labour. Women found the non-intrusive nature and accuracy of ultrasound valuable while midwives were concerned about de-skilling and medicalisation of birth. All groups felt a graphical representation of labour on a device would be helpful.

Time to delivery based on sonographic assessment prior to forceps and vacuum.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the duration of vacuum and forceps delivery in relation to ultrasound assessment of fetal head position and station. METHODS: A prospective single-centre cohort study in nulliparous women at term with prolonged second stage of labour. Fetal head position was determined using transabdominal ultrasound and station as head-perineum distance (HPD) from transperineal ultrasound prior to an instrument. The primary outcome was duration of vacuum and forceps to vaginal delivery and was analysed as survival expressed by hazard ratio (HR). Secondary outcomes were delivery mode and immediate neonatal outcome. RESULTS: In the study population of 54 women, the primary instrument was vacuum for 36 and forceps for 18. Four women were delivered by Caesarean section. Estimated median duration for forceps deliveries was 5 min (95% CI 4.0-6.0) vs. 9 min (95% CI 7.3-10.6) for vacuum deliveries (P = 0.17; Log-rank test). The HR for vaginal delivery was 2.02 (95% CI 1.04-3.91, P = 0.038) after adjusting for HPD, maternal age and BMI. OP position had minor influence on the primary outcome (HR changed from 2.02 to 2.08). The first instrument failed in 11/31 (35.5%) where HPD > 35 mm vs. 2/21 (9.5%) where HPD ≤ 35 mm (P < 0.05). There were no cases of Apgar score <7 at 5 min or umbilical artery pH < 7.1. CONCLUSION: In prolonged second stage, delivery with forceps was achieved more quickly than by vacuum when matched for ultrasound determined head station. Irrespective of which was the primary instrument, the failure rate was greater at higher head stations.