MR pelvimetry: prognosis for successful vaginal delivery in patients with suspected fetopelvic disproportion or breech presentation at term.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to correlate MR pelvimetric pelvic inlet measurements with mode of delivery and neonatal outcome in patients with suspected fetopelvic disproportion or breech presentation. METHODS: For this retrospective monocentric study, 237 consecutive MR pelvimetry reports (1999-2016) of pregnant women due to either suspected fetopelvic disproportion, pelvic deformation after trauma, or persistent breech presentation were retrieved from the radiologic database and matched with corresponding information from the obstetric database. RESULTS: Of 223 included women, 95 (42.6%) underwent planned cesarean section (pCS) and 128 (57.4%) underwent a trial of vaginal labour (TOL), of whom 93 (72.7%) delivered vaginally. Vaginal delivery was successful in 45 out of 64 (70.3%) cephalic cases and in 48 out of 64 (75.0%) breech cases. We found statistically significant differences in conjugata vera obstetrica (CV) and diameter transversalis (DT) between the groups TOL and pCS (CV: 12.5 ± 1.0 vs 12.1 ± 1.2 cm, p value 0.001; DT: 13.3 ± 0.9 vs 12.7 ± 0.9 cm, p value <0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between successful VD and cesarean section after TOL (CV: 12.5 ± 0.9 vs 12.3 ± 1.1 cm, p value 0.194; DT: 13.4 ± 0.9 vs 13.2 ± 0.9 cm, p value 0.358, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, MR pelvimetry was a useful tool for prepartal assessment of the female pelvis in the selection of TOL candidates. Yet, it does not seem to yield additional predictive value for women with a previous vaginal delivery.

MR Pelvimetry for Breech Presentation at Term- Interobserver Reliability, Incidental Findings and Reference Values.

PURPOSE: Antepartal MR pelvimetry is used to assess the viability of vaginal breech delivery. We evaluated the reliability of MR pelvimetric measurements as well as incidental findings noted by different clinicians and assessed potential reference values. METHODS: In this monocentric study, the radiologic database was searched for obstetric MR pelvimetries with singleton breech pregnancies between 1999 and 2016. 99 consecutive MR pelvimetries were included. A structured, independent review was performed by six observers with three clinical experience levels (attending, fellow, junior resident from the departments of radiology and obstetrics). Image analysis entailed the quantitative assessment of conjugata vera (CV) and diameter transversalis (DT), image quality and incidental findings. Obstetric data was retrieved from the obstetric database for reference value assessment. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was strong throughout (mean intraclass correlation coefficient range: 0.889 - 0.968). The individual measuring biases ranged between 0 - 2 mm, and the average limits of agreement were ±â€Š3 mm. Regarding the mode of delivery, the recommended cesarean section (rCS) group showed significantly smaller CV measurements (CV: 11.37 ±â€Š0.73, p-value < 0.0001) than any other delivery group. No statistical difference in CV between the vaginal delivery and unplanned cesarean section groups was found (p-value 0.902). DT measurements only showed a significant difference between rCS and elective cesarean section (p-value 0.039). 134 incidental findings were noted. CONCLUSION: Strong interobserver agreement irrespective of the reader's experience level supports MR pelvimetry as a reliable method for identifying women with fetopelvic disproportion in breech presentation. For a comprehensive appraisal of incidental findings, radiologic expertise is vital. KEY POINTS: · MR pelvimetry is a reliable method irrespective of the reader's experience level.. · Conjugata vera measurements aid in the prepartal viability assessment of vaginal breech delivery.. · Incidental findings are relatively common.. CITATION FORMAT: · von Bismarck A, Ertl-Wagner B, Stöcklein S et al. MR Pelvimetry for Breech Presentation at Term- Interobserver Reliability, Incidental Findings and Reference Values. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 424 - 432.