Comparison of vaginal breech deliveries with and without magnetic resonance imaging in primigravidas: a retrospective cohort analysis and literature review.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
G Cinari, A Edner, A Rody, K Kraft
{"title":"Comparison of vaginal breech deliveries with and without magnetic resonance imaging in primigravidas: a retrospective cohort analysis and literature review.","authors":"G Cinari, A Edner, A Rody, K Kraft","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07915-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Pelvimetry is often recommended in primiparous patients before offering vaginal breech delivery. Later studies show a reduction in perinatal mortality in women undergoing pelvimetry while earlier studies show the opposite. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), considered a new technology in 1990, has become the more expensive method for pelvimetry with lower-radiation, believed to prevent unnecessary cesarean sections and \"falsely attempted vaginal deliveries\".</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study (November 2019-February 2024) involved 160 primigravidas with breech presentation. The deliveries were attended by a team of experienced obstetricians (defined as attending at least 20 vaginal breech deliveries per year). Our cohort without MRI was compared with four study cohorts with MRI that were also used in a 2022 systematic review assessing delivery outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Neonatal outcomes, cesarean section rate and vaginal delivery rate were compared. Umbilical artery pH was significantly lower in two study cohorts (Hoffmann et al. 2016 7.18 vaginal vs. 7.24 caesarean section (p < 0.001), our cohort 7.19 vaginal vs. 7.27 cesarean section (p < 0.001)). The vaginal delivery rate without MRI (our cohort) was 65.6%. In studies with prior MRI as a selection criterion, the rate was between 65.4% and 67.5% (Hoffmann, Van Loon, Klemt). 25.5% of our patients who had to be delivered by cesarean had non-reassuring fetal heart tones in the second stage of labor. Only 4.4% of the patients attempted delivery with epidural anesthesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pelvimetry has not been shown to predict neonatal outcome and there is still no consensus on the interpretation of MRI measurements. Many authors argue, as confirmed by our results, that the outcomes are not dependent on pelvimetry, but on the competence of the obstetric delivering team.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07915-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Pelvimetry is often recommended in primiparous patients before offering vaginal breech delivery. Later studies show a reduction in perinatal mortality in women undergoing pelvimetry while earlier studies show the opposite. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), considered a new technology in 1990, has become the more expensive method for pelvimetry with lower-radiation, believed to prevent unnecessary cesarean sections and "falsely attempted vaginal deliveries".

Methods: This retrospective cohort study (November 2019-February 2024) involved 160 primigravidas with breech presentation. The deliveries were attended by a team of experienced obstetricians (defined as attending at least 20 vaginal breech deliveries per year). Our cohort without MRI was compared with four study cohorts with MRI that were also used in a 2022 systematic review assessing delivery outcomes.

Results: Neonatal outcomes, cesarean section rate and vaginal delivery rate were compared. Umbilical artery pH was significantly lower in two study cohorts (Hoffmann et al. 2016 7.18 vaginal vs. 7.24 caesarean section (p < 0.001), our cohort 7.19 vaginal vs. 7.27 cesarean section (p < 0.001)). The vaginal delivery rate without MRI (our cohort) was 65.6%. In studies with prior MRI as a selection criterion, the rate was between 65.4% and 67.5% (Hoffmann, Van Loon, Klemt). 25.5% of our patients who had to be delivered by cesarean had non-reassuring fetal heart tones in the second stage of labor. Only 4.4% of the patients attempted delivery with epidural anesthesia.

Conclusion: Pelvimetry has not been shown to predict neonatal outcome and there is still no consensus on the interpretation of MRI measurements. Many authors argue, as confirmed by our results, that the outcomes are not dependent on pelvimetry, but on the competence of the obstetric delivering team.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.40%
发文量
493
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report". The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信