Reliability of transperineal ultrasound for the assessment of the angle of progression in labor using parasagittal approach versus midsagittal approach

Abstract

Objective To assess the inter-method agreement between midsagittal (msAoP) and parasagittal (psAoP) measurements of the angle of progression (AoP) during labor. In addition, we aimed to evaluate the correlation between AoP measurements by both midsagittal and parasagittal approaches with the mode of delivery. Methods We recruited a nonconsecutive series of women in active labor with a singleton uncomplicated term pregnancy with fetuses in vertex presentation. Women underwent transperineal ultrasound in the absence of uterine contractions or maternal pushing to measure both msAoP and psAoP. The inter-method agreement between the two acquisitions was then assessed. Lastly, both measurements were compared between women who had a vaginal delivery versus those who underwent cesarean section (CS). Results Overall, 151 women were included in the study. We found an excellent agreement between msAoP and psAoP (ICC 0.935; 95% CI 0.912–0.953, p < .001). On the other hand, psAoP overestimated the measurements in comparison with msAoP (101.2 ± 15.6 versus 98.2 ± 16.0, p < .001). There was a significant correlation between both methods of AoP assessment and duration of the active second stage of labor and AoP measured by either method was significantly wider in patients who delivered vaginally compared to those who had a CS. Conclusions Our data showed a significant difference in the measured angle between the psAoP and the originally described msAoP. The automated measurements of AoP that have been introduced are designed using the parasagittal visualization of the more echogenic pubic arch, rather than the hypoechogenic pubic symphysis. We think that in the light of our data, care should be taken before applying data from midsagittal measurement in centers using the parasagittal automated approach.