Evaluation of the link between pelvimetry based on computed tomography and predicting status’ delivery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v5i6.681Abstract
Objectives:
The aim of this study is an anthropometric study in non-pregnant reproductive-aged women to predicting kind of delivery.
Methods:
This study was based on the archived information of Hazrat-e Rasool university hospital on 157 generative age women from 16 to 60 years old. who underwent CT between March of 2015 until March of 2018.
Results:
The obtained results showed that the three conjugates on sagittal plane, transverse diameter, anteroposterior sagittal diameter, interspinous diameter and intertuberous diameter on the coronal plane. The obstetrical conjugate was (123.3 mm in normal vaginal delivery and 113.9 mm in Cesarean section) which it was slightly longer than delivery group. The mean interspinous and intertuberous diameters measured by CT scans were 105.0 mm and 107.4 mm.
Conclusion:
The results of our study showed that because of the reduction in diameter of the inlet and middle pelvis, the rate of cesarean section was higher in under 35 years ages.
References
1. Aubry S, Padoin P, Petegnief Y, Vidal C, Riethmuller D, Delabrousse E. Can three-dimensional pelvimetry using low-dose stereoradiography replace low-dose CT pelvimetry? Diagnostic and interventional imaging. 2018;99(9):569-76.
2. Caldwell W, Moloy HC. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1933;26(4):479-505.
3. Williams Obstetrics. 23th Edition.Translation: Valadan M RS, Fathollahi A. Tehran: Arjmand Medical Publisher; 2010.volum2. p. 141-142.
4. s.snell R. clinical_anatomy_by_regions2012.
5. Bregar AT. Indications for caesarean delivery between 1955 and 2005 Indicationen fuer Kaiserschnitt geburth zwieschen 1955 und 2005.
6. Eskew JP, Saywell JR, Zollinger T, Erner B, Oser T. Trends in the frequency of cesarean delivery. A 21-year experience, 1970-1990. The Journal of reproductive medicine. 1994;39(10):809-17.
7. Krychowska A, Kosińska K, Karwan-Płońska A. Comparison of indications for cesarean section in 1985-86 and 2000-01. Analysis of changes. Ginekologia polska. 2004;75(12):926-31.
8. Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis G, Zafrakas M, Tampakoudis G, Mantalenakis S, et al. Cesarean section rates and indications in Greece: data from a 24-year period in a teaching hospital. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology. 2004;31(4):289-92.
9. Shareferad G, Fathean Z, Terane M, Mahake B. The Survey of pregnant women views about delivery and cesarean according behavioral intention model. IlamUni Med SciJ. 2007;15:19-23.
10. Bani S, SEIED RA, SHAMSI GT, Ghojazadeh M, Hasanpoor S. Delivery Agents Preferences Regarding Mode of Delivery for Themslves and Pergnant Women (Obstetrics, Gynecologists, Midwives). 2010.
11. Rafiei M, Saei Ghare M, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, et al. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of reproductive biomedicine (Yazd, Iran). 2018;16(4):221-34.
12. Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M, Asl Amin Abad R. Prevalence and Causes of Cesarean Section in Iran: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iranian journal of public health. 2014;43(5):545-55.
13. Klemt A-S, Schulze S, Brüggmann D, Louwen F. MRI-based pelvimetric measurements as predictors for a successful vaginal breech delivery in the Frankfurt Breech at term cohort (FRABAT). European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019;232:10-7.
14. Perlman S, Raviv-Zilka L, Levinsky D, Gidron A, Achiron R, Gilboa Y, et al. The birth canal: correlation between the pubic arch angle, the interspinous diameter, and the obstetrical conjugate: a computed tomography biometric study in reproductive age women. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2018:1-11.
15. Zaretsky MV AJ, Menintire DD, Hatab MR, Leveno KJ. Magnetic Resonance Imagining Pelvimetry and the Prediction Of Labor Dystocia. Obstetrics And Gynecology 2005;106(5):919-926.
16. Kolesova O, Kolesovs A, Vetra J. Age-related trends of lesser pelvic architecture in females and males: a computed tomography pelvimetry study. Anatomy & cell biology. 2017;50(4):265-74.
17. Federle MP, Cohen HA, Rosenwein MF, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Cann CE. Pelvimetry by digital radiography: a low-dose examination. Radiology. 1982;143(3):733-5.
18. Morris CW, Heggie JC, Acton CM. Computed tomography pelvimetry: accuracy and radiation dose compared with conventional pelvimetry. Australas Radiol. 1993;37(2):186-91.
19. Ham SJ, Koops HS, Veth RP, van Horn JR, Eisma WH, Hoekstra HJ. External and internal hemipelvectomy for sarcomas of the pelvic girdle: consequences of limb-salvage treatment. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO). 1997;23(6):540-6.
20. Liselele HB, Boulvain M, Tshibangu KC, Meuris S. Maternal height and external pelvimetry to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous African women: a cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2000;107(8):947-52.
21. Salk I, Cetin M, Salk S, Cetin A. Determining the incidence of gynecoid pelvis using three-dimensional computed tomography in nonpregnant multiparous women. Medical Principles and Practice. 2016;25(1):40-8.
22. Lin HC, Sheen TC, Tang CH, Kao S. Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a populationâ€based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2004;83(12):1178-83.
2. Caldwell W, Moloy HC. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1933;26(4):479-505.
3. Williams Obstetrics. 23th Edition.Translation: Valadan M RS, Fathollahi A. Tehran: Arjmand Medical Publisher; 2010.volum2. p. 141-142.
4. s.snell R. clinical_anatomy_by_regions2012.
5. Bregar AT. Indications for caesarean delivery between 1955 and 2005 Indicationen fuer Kaiserschnitt geburth zwieschen 1955 und 2005.
6. Eskew JP, Saywell JR, Zollinger T, Erner B, Oser T. Trends in the frequency of cesarean delivery. A 21-year experience, 1970-1990. The Journal of reproductive medicine. 1994;39(10):809-17.
7. Krychowska A, Kosińska K, Karwan-Płońska A. Comparison of indications for cesarean section in 1985-86 and 2000-01. Analysis of changes. Ginekologia polska. 2004;75(12):926-31.
8. Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis G, Zafrakas M, Tampakoudis G, Mantalenakis S, et al. Cesarean section rates and indications in Greece: data from a 24-year period in a teaching hospital. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology. 2004;31(4):289-92.
9. Shareferad G, Fathean Z, Terane M, Mahake B. The Survey of pregnant women views about delivery and cesarean according behavioral intention model. IlamUni Med SciJ. 2007;15:19-23.
10. Bani S, SEIED RA, SHAMSI GT, Ghojazadeh M, Hasanpoor S. Delivery Agents Preferences Regarding Mode of Delivery for Themslves and Pergnant Women (Obstetrics, Gynecologists, Midwives). 2010.
11. Rafiei M, Saei Ghare M, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, et al. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of reproductive biomedicine (Yazd, Iran). 2018;16(4):221-34.
12. Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M, Asl Amin Abad R. Prevalence and Causes of Cesarean Section in Iran: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iranian journal of public health. 2014;43(5):545-55.
13. Klemt A-S, Schulze S, Brüggmann D, Louwen F. MRI-based pelvimetric measurements as predictors for a successful vaginal breech delivery in the Frankfurt Breech at term cohort (FRABAT). European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019;232:10-7.
14. Perlman S, Raviv-Zilka L, Levinsky D, Gidron A, Achiron R, Gilboa Y, et al. The birth canal: correlation between the pubic arch angle, the interspinous diameter, and the obstetrical conjugate: a computed tomography biometric study in reproductive age women. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2018:1-11.
15. Zaretsky MV AJ, Menintire DD, Hatab MR, Leveno KJ. Magnetic Resonance Imagining Pelvimetry and the Prediction Of Labor Dystocia. Obstetrics And Gynecology 2005;106(5):919-926.
16. Kolesova O, Kolesovs A, Vetra J. Age-related trends of lesser pelvic architecture in females and males: a computed tomography pelvimetry study. Anatomy & cell biology. 2017;50(4):265-74.
17. Federle MP, Cohen HA, Rosenwein MF, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Cann CE. Pelvimetry by digital radiography: a low-dose examination. Radiology. 1982;143(3):733-5.
18. Morris CW, Heggie JC, Acton CM. Computed tomography pelvimetry: accuracy and radiation dose compared with conventional pelvimetry. Australas Radiol. 1993;37(2):186-91.
19. Ham SJ, Koops HS, Veth RP, van Horn JR, Eisma WH, Hoekstra HJ. External and internal hemipelvectomy for sarcomas of the pelvic girdle: consequences of limb-salvage treatment. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO). 1997;23(6):540-6.
20. Liselele HB, Boulvain M, Tshibangu KC, Meuris S. Maternal height and external pelvimetry to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous African women: a cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2000;107(8):947-52.
21. Salk I, Cetin M, Salk S, Cetin A. Determining the incidence of gynecoid pelvis using three-dimensional computed tomography in nonpregnant multiparous women. Medical Principles and Practice. 2016;25(1):40-8.
22. Lin HC, Sheen TC, Tang CH, Kao S. Association between maternal age and the likelihood of a cesarean section: a populationâ€based multivariate logistic regression analysis. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2004;83(12):1178-83.
Downloads
Published
2019-12-26
How to Cite
Mirgalobayat, S., Ghahari, L., Allahqoli, L., Saadat Mostafavi, S. R., Safari, K., Rikhtehgar, M., … Madadian, M. (2019). Evaluation of the link between pelvimetry based on computed tomography and predicting status’ delivery. Journal of Contemporary Medical Sciences, 5(6), 313–316. https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v5i6.681
Issue
Section
Articles
