Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
Weitere Optionen …

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, MD, FRCOG, Joachim W.

Hrsg. v. Bancalari, Eduardo / Chappelle, Joseph / Chervenak, Frank A. / D'Addario , Vincenzo / Genc, Mehmet R. / Greenough, Anne / Grunebaum, Amos / Konje, Justin C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Romero, Roberto / Zalud, MD PhD, Ivica


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.361
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.578

CiteScore 2018: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.522
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.602

Online
ISSN
1619-3997
Alle Formate und Preise
Weitere Optionen …
Band 46, Heft 1

Hefte

Impact factors on cervical dilation rates in the first stage of labor

Jana Juhasova
  • Department of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Weitere Artikel des Autors:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Martina Kreft
  • Department of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Weitere Artikel des Autors:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Roland Zimmermann
  • Head of Department of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Weitere Artikel des Autors:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Nina Kimmich
  • Korrespondenzautor
  • Division of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
  • E-Mail
  • Weitere Artikel des Autors:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Online erschienen: 08.07.2017 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0284

Abstract

Aims:

To assess cervical dilation rates of nulliparous and multiparous women in the active first stage of labor and to evaluate significant impact factors.

Methods:

In a retrospective cohort study between January 2007 and July 2014 at the University Hospital of Zurich in Switzerland, we analyzed 8378 women with singleton pregnancies in vertex presentation with a vaginal delivery at 34+0 to 42+5 gestational weeks. Median cervical dilation rates were calculated and different impact factors evaluated.

Results:

Cervical dilation rates increase during labor progress with faster rates in multiparous compared with nulliparous women (P<0.001). Dilation rates exceed 1 cm/h at a dilatation of 6–7 cm, but are very individual. Accelerating impact factors are multiparity, a greater amount of cervical dilation and fetal occipitoanterior position, whereas the use of epidural anesthesia, a higher fetal weight and head circumference decelerate dilation (P<0.001).

Conclusion:

Cervical dilation is a hyperbolic increasing process, with faster dilation rates in multiparous compared to nulliparous women and a reversal point of labor around 6–7 cm, respectively. Besides, cervical dilation is highly individual and affected by several impact factors. The diagnosis of labor arrest or prolonged labor should therefore be based on such rates and on the individual evaluation of every woman.

Keywords: Cervical dilation; dilation rates; first stage of labor; impact factors; labor curve; labor progress; partogram

References

  • [1]

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:179–93.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    Dujardin B, De Schampheleire I, Sene H, Ndiaye F. Value of the alert and action lines on the partogram. Lancet 1992;339:1336–8.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [3]

    World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet 1994;343:1399–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    Neal JL, Lowe NK. Physiologic partograph to improve birth safety and outcomes among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset. Med Hypotheses. 2012;78:319–26.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Friedman EA. Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1955;6:567–89.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [6]

    Friedman EA. Labor in multiparas; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1956;8:691–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    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;115:705–10.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Graseck A, Tuuli M, Roehl K, Odibo A, Macones G, Cahill A. Fetal descent in labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:521–6.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Carlhall S, Kallen K, Blomberg M. Maternal body mass index and duration of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171:49–53.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Gurewitsch ED, Diament P, Fong J, Huang GH, Popovtzer A, Weinstein D, et al. The labor curve of the grand multipara: does progress of labor continue to improve with additional childbearing? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1331-8.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Kenyon S, Tokumasu H, Dowswell T, Pledge D, Mori R. High-dose versus low-dose oxytocin for augmentation of delayed labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD007201.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [12]

    Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Bryant AS, Caughey AB. Length of the first stage of labor and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1127–35.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Harper LM, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Cahill AG. Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:536 e1–7.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Neal JL, Lowe NK, Schorn MN, Holley SL, Ryan SL, Buxton M, et al. Labor dystocia: a common approach to diagnosis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60:499–509.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Cheng YW, Delaney SS, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:477 e1–7.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1181–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    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;102:1445–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Greenberg MB, Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Stotland NE, Bryant AS, Caughey AB. Are there ethnic differences in the length of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:743–8.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Alexander JM, Sharma SK, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Epidural analgesia lengthens the Friedman active phase of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:46–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [20]

    Zaki MN, Hibbard JU, Kominiarek MA. Contemporary labor patterns and maternal age. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1018–24.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21]

    Zhang J, Klebanoff MA, DerSimonian R. Epidural analgesia in association with duration of labor and mode of delivery: a quantitative review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:970–7.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22]

    Ohel G, Gonen R, Vaida S, Barak S, Gaitini L. Early versus late initiation of epidural analgesia in labor: does it increase the risk of cesarean section? A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:600–5.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [23]

    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):943–51.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [24]

    Vahratian A, Hoffman MK, Troendle JF, Zhang J. The impact of parity on course of labor in a contemporary population. Birth 2006;33:12–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [25]

    Hanley GE, Munro S, Greyson D, Gross MM, Hundley V, Spiby H, et al. Diagnosing onset of labor: a systematic review of definitions in the research literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:71.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [26]

    DGGG GSoOaG. Tocolytics to prevent preterm birth. AWMF 1500252010.

  • [27]

    van Bogaert LJ. Revising the primigravid partogram: does it make any difference? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279:643–7.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28]

    Neal JL, Lowe NK, Ahijevych KL, Patrick TE, Cabbage LA, Corwin EJ. “Active labor” duration and dilation rates among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset: a systematic review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:308–18.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [29]

    Studd J. Partograms and nomograms of cervical dilatation in management of primigravid labour. Br Med J. 1973;4:451–5.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [30]

    Kilpatrick SJ, Laros RK Jr. Characteristics of normal labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:85–7.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [31]

    Lavender T, Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw S. Partogram action line study: a randomised trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:976–80.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [32]

    Neal JL, Ryan SL, Lowe NK, Schorn MN, Buxton M, Holley SL, et al. Labor dystocia: uses of related nomenclature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60:485–98.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [33]

    Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1281–7.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [34]

    Albers LL. The duration of labor in healthy women. J Perinatol. 1999;19:114–9.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [35]

    Impey L, Hobson J, O’Herlihy C. Graphic analysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:438–43.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [36]

    Leftwich HK, Gao W, Wilkins I. Does increase in birth weight change the normal labor curve? Am J Perinatol. 2015;32:87–92.Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [37]

    Fraser WD, Cayer M, Soeder BM, Turcot L, Marcoux S, Group PS. Risk factors for difficult delivery in nulliparas with epidural analgesia in second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:409–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [38]

    Kominiarek MA, Zhang J, Vanveldhuisen P, Troendle J, Beaver J, Hibbard JU. Contemporary labor patterns: the impact of maternal body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:244 e1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [39]

    Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:698–704.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [40]

    Rinehart BK, Terrone DA, Hudson C, Isler CM, Larmon JE, Perry KG, Jr. Lack of utility of standard labor curves in the prediction of progression during labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1520–6.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [41]

    Friedman EA. Progression of labor during induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:779–80.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [42]

    Ostborg TB, Romundstad PR, Eggebo TM. Duration of the active phase of labor in spontaneous and induced labors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:120–7.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [43]

    Hoffman MK, Vahratian A, Sciscione AC, Troendle JF, Zhang J. Comparison of labor progression between induced and noninduced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1029–34.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [44]

    Feghali M, Timofeev J, Huang CC, Driggers R, Miodovnik M, Landy HJ, et al. Preterm induction of labor: predictors of vaginal delivery and labor curves. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:91 e1–7.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Artikelinformationen

Corresponding author: Nina Kimmich, MD, Division of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland, Tel.: 0041-44-255 1111


Erhalten: 25.08.2016

Angenommen: 22.12.2016

Online erschienen: 08.07.2017

Erschienen im Druck: 26.01.2018


Author’s statement

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

Material and methods: Informed consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individuals included in this study.

Contribution to authorship: JJ: Data management, statistical analysis, writing of the manuscript. MK: Study design and revision of the manuscript. RZ: Study design and revision of the manuscript. NK: Study design, data management, statistical analysis and writing of the manuscript.

Ethical approval: The research related to human subject use has complied with all the relevant national regulations, and institutional policies, and is in accordance with the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent committee.

Funding: No funding was obtained for this study.


Quellenangabe: Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Band 46, Heft 1, Seiten 59–66, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0284.

Zitat exportieren

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Kommentare (0)