Is Clinical Pelvimetry Still Relevant in the Modern Era? A Narrative Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
Clinical pelvimetry involves the manual examination and measurement of bony landmarks to estimate pelvic diameters. Anatomically, this practice evaluates pelvic structures crucial for childbirth, aiding in anticipating challenges during delivery. However, evolving technologies such as ultrasonography and AI-driven imaging challenge its conventional role. Skepticism regarding reliability, proficiency, ethical considerations, and cost-effectiveness poses dilemmas regarding its contemporary use. Despite reduced routine application, clinical pelvimetry retains significance in specific scenarios, guiding decisions for high-risk pregnancies and assessing recurrent complications. Striking a balance between traditional and innovative approaches while considering guidelines, continuous education, cost-benefit ratios, and patient autonomy defines its relevance. Embracing its predictive value in select cases ensures improved obstetric outcomes. This article navigates the landscape of clinical pelvimetry, highlighting its evolution, challenges, and ongoing relevance, envisaging its vital role in modern obstetrics.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Estrada Trejo F, Kuba K, Gurewitsch Allen E. Traditional obstetric pelvimetry in delivery and labor. Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management: Labor, Delivery and Puerperium. 2021:85-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_9
Karantanas A. Pelvis/hip: adult. Measurements in Musculoskeletal Radiology. 2020:459-516.
Keller TM, Rake A, Michel SC, Seifert B, Efe G, Treiber K, et al. Obstetric MR pelvimetry: reference values and evaluation of inter-and intraobserver error and intraindividual variability. Radiology. 2003;227(1):37-43. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2271011658.
Standring S. Gray's anatomy e-book: the anatomical basis of clinical practice: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2021.
Pavličev M, Romero R, Mitteroecker P. Evolution of the human pelvis and obstructed labor: new explanations of an old obstetrical dilemma. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2020;222(1):3-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.043
Iliescu DG, Belciug S, Gheonea IA. Simulation and Learning Curve of the Traditional and Sonographic Pelvimetry. Practical Guide to Simulation in Delivery Room Emergencies: Springer; 2023. p. 289-308.
Johnson GE, Kan L, Nguyen J, Campbell K, Ralph L, Koenig N, et al. Development of patient-centered outcomes for labour and birth: a qualitative study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2022;49(1):21. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog4901021
Davis-Floyd R, Premkumar A. Obstetric Violence and Systemic Disparities: Can Obstetrics be Humanized and Decolonized?: Berghahn Books; 2023.
D'Souza AP. Check for updates Newer Concept of Antenatal Care and Antenatal Examination/Assessment Pramila D'Souza, Reena Wilma Frank, Joylene Diana D'Almeida, and Shashi Kabra Maheshwari. Labour and Delivery: An Updated Guide. 2023:135.
Organization WH. WHO labour care guide: user’s manual. 2020.
Rizzo G, Ghi T, Henrich W, Tutschek B, Kamel R, Lees CC, et al. Ultrasound in labor: clinical practice guideline and recommendation by the WAPM-World Association of Perinatal Medicine and the PMF-Perinatal Medicine Foundation. Journal of Perinatal medicine. 2022;50(8):1007-29. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2022-0160.
Carter P, Baker QF, Adds PJ. Anatomy of the Pelvis and Perineum. Anatomy: CRC Press; 2022. p. 197-233.
Bychenko VG, Kulabukhova EA, Baev OR, Babich DA. Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021(9):190-8. https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.9.190-198
Starrach T, Schmidhuber L, Elger L, Franz M, Buechel J, Hübener C, et al. Pelvic inlet area is associated with birth mode. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2023;102(1):59-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14478.
Shimaoka R, Takahashi Y, Ono H, Matsui M, Asai K, Iwagaki S. Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetric measurements as predictors for emergent cesarean delivery in obstructed labor. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X. 2023;19:100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100216
VanSickle C, Liese KL, Rutherford JN. Textbook typologies: challenging the myth of the perfect obstetric pelvis. The Anatomical Record. 2022;305(4):952-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.24880
Shen P, Fu J, Zhang W, Chen C, Liu P. A comparative study of two pelvimetry methods: 3D models based on CT and MRI. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2024;296:286-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.02.017
Smith PP, Choudhury S, Clark TJ. The effectiveness of gynaecological teaching associates in teaching pelvic examination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical education. 2015;49(12):1197-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12816.
Capelle C, Devos P, Caudrelier C, Verpillat P, Fourquet T, Puech P, et al. How reproducible are classical and new CT-pelvimetry measurements? Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2020;101(2):79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2019.07.011
Matjašič A, Mekiš N. Optimisation of pelvic imaging radiography protocols in plain radiology: a scoping review. Radiološke tehnologije. 2021;12(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.48026/issn.26373297.2021.12.1.3
Semghouli S, Amaoui B, Hakam OK, Choukri A. Radiation exposure during pelvimetry CT procedures in Ibn Sina Children's Hospital of Rabat. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2020;175:108087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2018.12.007
Salsi G, Cataneo I, Dodaro G, Rizzo N, Pilu G, Sanz Gascón M, et al. Three-dimensional/four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound: clinical utility and future prospects. International journal of women's health. 2017:643-56. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S103789
Achiron R. Check for Simulation in Obstetric: From the History to the Modern Applications Reuven Achiron, Laura Adamo, and Tal Weissbach. Practical Guide to Simulation in Delivery Room Emergencies. 2023:3.
Bosschieter TM, Xu Z, Lan H, Lengerich BJ, Nori H, Sitcov K, et al. Using Interpretable Machine Learning to Predict Maternal and Fetal Outcomes. arXiv preprint arXiv:220705322. 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.05322
Mendez‐Dominguez N, Vazquez‐Vazquez GG, Laviada‐Molina HA, de Jesus Inurreta‐Diaz M, Fajardo‐Ruiz LS, Azcorra H. Cephalopelvic disproportion as primary diagnosis for cesarean section: Role of neonatal birthweight in relation to maternal height at a Hospital in Merida, Mexico. American Journal of Human Biology. 2021;33(2):e23463. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23463
Roux N, Korb D, Morin C, Sibony O. Trial of labor after cesarean and contribution of pelvimetry in the prognosis of neonatal morbidity. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2020;49(3):101681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101681.
Singh SM, Singh T, Thakur V. Prospective study of primary cesarean section in multigravida. Parity. 2023;1(404):404. https://doi.org/10.21276/obgyn.2023.10.1.36
Organization WH. WHO recommendations on intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience: World Health Organization; 2018.
Chandrashekar K, Chandrasekhar T. A study to recognize and rule out the possibility of a CPD using simple maternal anthropometric measurements at an early stage of labor. 2021;5(5):28-32. https://doi.org/ 10.33545/gynae.2021.v5.i5a.1011
KALALOLO BP, GP TP, OKOCHA N. Holistic health care and maternal death in a hospital in south Nigeria: A case report. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews. 2023;16(2):094-8. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2023.16.2.0314
Kurian A, Roy I, Saikia N, Mihsill K, Halder S. Evaluation of maternal anthropometric measurements to predict cephalopelvic disproportion in nulliparous women in rural Meghalaya. International Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2021;5(6):119-22. https://doi.org/10.33545/gynae.2021.v5.i6b.1071
Buttigieg GG, Micallef-Stafrace K. Shoulder dystocia: Updating some medico-legal issues. Medico-Legal Journal. 2022;90(1):13-6. http://doi.org/10.1177/00258172211066364
Habek D, Prka M, Čartolovni A, Cerovac A, Dokozić D. Caesarean section between doctrine to heresis. Medicoethical and deontological view of caesarology: an opinion. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2021;48(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog.2021.01.2305