Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2021, Vol. 48 Issue (2): 317-322    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2021.02.2336
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Is routine X-ray pelvimetry of value to decide on mode of delivery for women with labor dystocia?
Kaori Kawakami1, 2, †, Yuria Tanaka1, 2, †, Yuji Ikeda1, Atsushi Komatsu1, *(), Osamu Kobayashi1, Takahiro Nakajima1, Takehiro Nakao1, Chiaki Takeya1, Mikiko Asai-Sato1, Fumihisa Chishima1, Misako Iwata2, Kei Kawana1, *()
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nihon University School of Medicine, 30-1 Oyaguchi-kamimachi, Itabashi-ku, 173-8610 Tokyo, Japan
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Ohtsuka Hospital, 2-8-1 Minami Ohtsuka Toshima-ku, 170-8476 Tokyo, Japan
Download:  PDF(504KB)  ( 66 ) Full text   ( 6 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
X-ray pelvimetry is used for evaluation of pelvic inlet generally to diagnose cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) or contracted inlet. Cesarean section delivery (C/S) is often performed for labor dystocia without CPD or contracted inlet. We examined whether X-ray pelvimetry is useful to decide on mode of delivery in women with dystocia. A total of 1118 pregnant women received X-ray pelvimetry before or during labor. 205 women with cesarean deliveries for indications except for dystocia were excluded. 913 women undergoing induction/augmentation were retrospectively investigated. Obstetrical and maternal variables were analyzed by univariate, multivariate or ROC analysis. Among 913 women, 37 including three with contracted inlet and seven with CPD, gave birth by C/S, whereas 876 gave birth by vaginal delivery. Low maternal height, older age, small obstetrical conjugate, large weight and infant head size were associated with risk of C/S for dystocia. Multivariate analysis revealed that the obstetrical conjugate was an independent variable for risk of C/S. The area under the ROC curve and the optimal cut-off values, respectively, were as follows: obstetrical conjugate: 0.68 and 11.7 cm (odds ratio = 4.27), transverse diameter: 0.59 and 11.4 cm (odds ratio = 1.82), maternal height: 0.70 and 155.5 cm (odds ratio = 4.33), and maternal weight before pregnancy: 0.55 and 49.7 kg (odds ratio = 1.98). The obstetrical conjugate was an independent variable associated with risk of C/S for dystocia. Maternal height was comparable to the conjugate in term of diagnostic ability. Our data suggested that routine X-ray pelvimetry was not beneficial to identify women at risk of C/S for dystocia.
Key words:  X-ray pelvimetry      Labor dystocia      Cephalopelvic disproportion     
Submitted:  26 October 2020      Revised:  21 January 2021      Accepted:  08 February 2021      Published:  15 April 2021     
Fund: 
JP 20gk0110042h0002/Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
*Corresponding Author(s):  kkawana-tky@umin.org (Kei Kawana); atsukoma@yahoo.co.jp (Atsushi Komatsu)   
About author:  These authors contributed equally.

Cite this article: 

Kaori Kawakami, Yuria Tanaka, Yuji Ikeda, Atsushi Komatsu, Osamu Kobayashi, Takahiro Nakajima, Takehiro Nakao, Chiaki Takeya, Mikiko Asai-Sato, Fumihisa Chishima, Misako Iwata, Kei Kawana. Is routine X-ray pelvimetry of value to decide on mode of delivery for women with labor dystocia?. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 317-322.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2021.02.2336     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2021/V48/I2/317

[1] S. Srisukho, K. Srisupundit, T. Tongsong. Fulfillment of the criteria for diagnosis of cephalo-pelvic disproportion: ACOG guidelines[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(4): 500-504.
[1] Eli M. Roth, Michael H. Davidson. PCSK9 Inhibitors: Mechanism of Action, Efficacy, and Safety[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2018, 19(S1): 31 -46 .
[2] Sandeep K. Krishnan, Norman E. Lepor. Acute and Chronic Cardiovascular Effects of Hyperkalemia: New Insights Into Prevention and Clinical Management[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2016, 17(S1): 9 -21 .
[3] Ibrahim Sidiqi, Patrick Alexander. Current Advances in Endovascular Therapy for Infrapopliteal Artery Disease[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2015, 16(1): 36 -50 .
[4] Peter Shalit. Management of Dyslipidemia in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2014, 15(S1): 38 -46 .
[5] Sophie Mavrogeni, Fabrizio Cantini, Gerald M. Pohost. Systemic Vasculitis: An Underestimated Cause of Heart Failure—Assessment by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2013, 14(1): 49 -55 .
[6] George L. Smith. Appropriate Use Criteria: The Gold Standard, or a Mechanism for the Derogation of Clinical Judgment?[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2011, 12(2): 105 .
[7] Prabhjot Singh Nijjar, Anoop Parameswaran, Aman M. Amanullah. Evaluation of Anomalous Aortic Origins of the Coronaries by 64-Slice Cardiac Computed Tomography[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2007, 8(3): 175 -181 .
[8] Jeffrey W. Moses, Stephane Carlier, Issam Moussa. Lesion Preparation Prior to Stenting[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(S2): 16 -21 .
[9] Dean J. Kereiakes. Coronary Small-Vessel Stenting in the Era of Drug Elution[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(S2): 34 -45 .
[10] Steven V. Edelman. The Role of the Thiazolidinediones in the Practical Management of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk Factors[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2003, 4(S6): 29 -37 .