Elghorori M R M, Hassan I, Dartey W, Abdel-Aziz E, Bradley M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, UK.
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Aug;26(6):521-6. doi: 10.1080/01443610600797459.
The aim of the study was to compare the pre-induction cervical assessment by Bishop's score with the transvaginal ultrasound cervical length as predictors of the induction-delivery interval (IDI) and the success of induction. This prospective study included 104 women with singleton pregnancies who were booked for induction of labour at term over a period of 3 years. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of the cervical length and Bishop's Score were performed by different operators. Data were collected on parity, gestational age, methods of induction, Bishop's score, ultrasound cervical length measurements, IDI and mode of delivery. A total of 87 women (83.7%) delivered vaginally and 17 (16.3%) delivered by caesarean section. Linear regression models demonstrated that ultrasound cervical length was a better indicator of IDI than Bishop's score. The adjusted R2 for the regression including ultrasound cervical length was 0.87 compared with a value of 0.67 for the model including Bishop's score. Although logistic regression analysis confirmed that cervical effacement was the best component of Bishop's score to predict the mode of delivery, ultrasound cervical length assessment provided better prediction. Receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the optimised cut-off value for prediction of vaginal delivery was < or =3.4 cm for the cervical length and >5 for the Bishop's score. At those optimised cut-off values the cervical length predicted vaginal delivery with sensitivity of 62.1% (95% CI [51%, 72.3%]) and specificity of 100% (95% CI [80.5%, 100%]) while the Bishop's score predicted vaginal delivery with a sensitivity of 23% (95% CI [14.6%, 33.2%]) and specificity of 88.2% (95% CI [63.5%, 98.5%]). Further analysis showed that ultrasound cervical length has a higher sensitivity in prediction of vaginal delivery in multiparous than nulliparous women (85.1% compared with 35%) at a cut-off value of < or =3.4 cm. On the other hand, it has a higher sensitivity in nulliparous comparable with multiparous women (85.3% compared with 30%) in prediction of IDI at a cut-off value of >3.5 cm. In conclusion, transvaginal ultrasound cervical length assessment is better than Bishop's score in predicting the IDI and the success of induction of labour.
本研究旨在比较通过Bishop评分进行的引产术前宫颈评估与经阴道超声测量的宫颈长度,以预测引产至分娩间隔时间(IDI)及引产成功率。这项前瞻性研究纳入了104名单胎妊娠女性,她们在3年期间被安排足月引产。宫颈长度的经阴道超声测量和Bishop评分由不同操作人员进行。收集了关于产次、孕周、引产方法、Bishop评分、超声宫颈长度测量值、IDI及分娩方式的数据。共有87名女性(83.7%)经阴道分娩,17名(16.3%)行剖宫产。线性回归模型表明,与Bishop评分相比,超声宫颈长度是IDI更好的指标。包含超声宫颈长度的回归模型调整R2为0.87,而包含Bishop评分的模型为0.67。尽管逻辑回归分析证实宫颈消退是Bishop评分中预测分娩方式的最佳组成部分,但超声宫颈长度评估提供了更好的预测。受试者工作特征曲线显示,预测阴道分娩的优化临界值为宫颈长度≤3.4 cm,Bishop评分为>5分。在这些优化临界值下,宫颈长度预测阴道分娩的敏感性为62.1%(95%可信区间[51%,72.3%]),特异性为100%(95%可信区间[80.5%,100%]),而Bishop评分预测阴道分娩的敏感性为23%(95%可信区间[14.6%,33.2%]),特异性为88.2%(95%可信区间[63.5%,98.5%])。进一步分析表明,在临界值≤3.4 cm时,超声宫颈长度预测经产妇阴道分娩的敏感性高于初产妇(85.1%对35%)。另一方面,在临界值>3.5 cm时,超声宫颈长度预测初产妇IDI的敏感性与经产妇相当(85.3%对30%)。总之,经阴道超声宫颈长度评估在预测IDI及引产成功率方面优于Bishop评分。