Annals of SBV

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Utility of Ultrasonographic Parameters for Monitoring of Progress of Labor and Prediction of Successful Vaginal Delivery: Narrative Review

Papa Dasari

Keywords : Intrapartum ultrasound, Monitoring of labor progress, Prediction of vaginal delivery, Sonopartogram

Citation Information : Dasari P. Utility of Ultrasonographic Parameters for Monitoring of Progress of Labor and Prediction of Successful Vaginal Delivery: Narrative Review. 2023; 12 (1):18-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10085-9127

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-07-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Traditionally, progress of labor and the prediction of vaginal delivery is done by clinical assessment. There is a lot of subjectivity in assessment and increased interobserver variability, especially with digital vaginal examination. For the past two decades, many ultrasonographic parameters were developed, and their utility was studied objectively. Of the ultrasound (USG) parameters, head position is the easiest to recognize. The descent and station of the head are determined indirectly by angle of progression (AOP) and head perineal distance (HPD). Cervical dilatation does not correlate well with digital vaginal examination, and it is difficult to visualize cervical rim beyond 8-cm dilatation. Midline angle and head-up position are other parameters in the second stage of labor that are determined to predict difficult vaginal delivery. Angle of progression of >110° and HPD <4 cm are good predictors of vaginal delivery. “Sonopartogram” may replace the traditional partogram as it is more objective, noninvasive, and women-friendly. Intrapartum apps are incorporating USG parameters with other patient characteristics to develop models for predicting vaginal delivery.

  1. Rizzo G, Tullio G, Wolfgang H, 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. J Perinat Med 2022;50(8);1007–1029. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2022-0160.
  2. Friedman EA. Primigravid labor: A graphic-statistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955;6(6):567–589. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-195512000-00001.
  3. World Health Organization. Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
  4. Dalal AR, Purandare AC. The partograph in childbirth: An absolute essentiality or a mere exercise? J Obstet Gynaecol India 2018;68(1): 3–14. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-017-1051-y.
  5. WHO Labour Care Guide: User Manual. Available from:
  6. Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, Dittmar A, Gaucherand P, Cucherat M, et al. Birth simulator: Reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192(3): 868–874. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.028.
  7. Westover T, Knuppel RA. Modern management of clinical chorioamnionitis. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1995;3(3):123–132. DOI: 10.1155/S1064744995000457.
  8. World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet 1994;343(8910):1399–1404. PMID: 7910888.
  9. NICE Clinical Guideline 55. Intrapartum care 2007. Available from:
  10. Hassan WA, Eggebø T, Ferguson M, Gillett A, Studd J, Pasupathy D, et al. The sonopartogram: A novel method for recording progress of labor by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43(2):189–194. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13212.
  11. Wiafe YA, Whitehead B, Venables H, Dassah ET, Eggebø TM. Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of cervical dilatation and its value in detecting active labor. J Ultrasound 2018;21(3):233–239. DOI: 10.1007/s40477-018-0309-2.
  12. Shetty J, Aahir V, Pandey D, Adiga P, Kamath A. Fetal head position during the first stage of labor: Comparison between vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasound. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2014;2014:314617. DOI: 10.1155/2014/314617.
  13. Zahalka N, Sadan O, Malinger G, Liberati M, Boaz M, Glezerman M, et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography with digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;193(2):381–386. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.011.
  14. Adam G, Sirbu O, Voicu C, Dominic D, Tudorache S, Cernea N. Intrapartum ultrasound assessment of fetal head position, tip the scale: natural or instrumental delivery? Curr Health Sci J 2014;40(1): 18–22. DOI: 10.12865/CHSJ.40.01.03.
  15. Gardberg M, Laakkonen E, Sälevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: A study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91(5 Pt 1):746–749. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00074-x.
  16. Akmal S, Tsoi E, Kametas N, Howard R, Nicolaides KH. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002;12(3):172–177. DOI: 10.1080/jmf.
  17. Akmal S, Tsoi E, Howard R, Osei E, Nicolaides KH. Investigation of occiput posterior delivery by intrapartum sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24(4):425–428. DOI: 10.1002/uog.1064.
  18. Senécal J, Xiong X, Fraser WD; Pushing Early Or Pushing Late with Epidural study group. Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(4):763–772. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000154889.47063.84.
  19. Pearl ML, Roberts JM, Laros RK, Hurd WW. Vaginal delivery from the persistent occiput posterior position. Influence on maternal and neonatal morbidity. J Reprod Med 1993;38(12):955–961. PMID: 8120853.
  20. Benavides L, Wu JM, Hundley AF, Ivester TS, Visco AG. The impact of occiput posterior fetal head position on the risk of anal sphincter injury in forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192(5):1702–1706. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.047.
  21. Wu JM, Williams KS, Hundley AF, Connolly A, Visco AG. Occiput posterior fetal head position increases the risk of anal sphincter injury in vacuum-assisted deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193(2): 525–528. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.03.059.
  22. Ghi T, Eggebø T, Lees C, Kalache K, Rozenberg P, Youssef A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: Intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52(1):128–139. DOI: 10.1002/uog.19072.
  23. Benediktsdottir S, Eggebø TM, Salvesen KÅ. Agreement between transperineal ultrasound measurements and digital examinations of cervical dilatation during labor. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:273. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0704-z.
  24. Hassan WA, Taylor S, Lees C. Intrapartum ultrasound for assessment of cervical dilatation. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021;3(6S):100448. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100448.
  25. Dimassi K, Hammami A, Ben Amor A, Triki A, Gara F. P17.04: Relevance of ultrasound cervical dilation measurements during labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;48(S1):222. DOI: 10.1002/uog.16661.
  26. Mohaghegh Z, Jahanfar S, Abedi P, Abd El Aziz MA. Reliability of ultrasound versus digital vaginal examination in detecting cervical dilatation during labor: A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review. Ultrasound J 2021;13:37. DOI: 10.1186/s13089-021-00239-1.
  27. Oboro VO, Tabowei TO, Bosah JO. Fetal station at the time of labour arrest and risk of caesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;25(1): 20–22. DOI: 10.1080/01443610400022512.
  28. Tutschek B, Torkildsen EA, Eggebo TM. Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41(4):425–429. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12422.
  29. Pérez SP, Seguer JJ, Pujadas AR, Azuara LS, Juanos JL, Sagristà OA. Role of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound: Angle of progression cut-off and correlation with delivery mode. Clin Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med 2017;3(4):1–4. DOI: 10.15761/COGRM.1000188.
  30. Abdelhalim D, Abolmakarem H, Hassan M. Prediction of labor outcome by measuring the angle of progression using two-dimensional trans-perineal ultrasound: A prospective cohort study. World J Adv Res Rev 2021;12(03):200–204. DOI: 10.30574/wjarr.2021.12.3.0675.
  31. Priya SS, Shankar R. Intra Partum transperineal ultrasound to assess the progress of labour and to predict the mode of delivery – A hospital based. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2021;10(9):71–77.
  32. Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, Youssef A, Torkildsen EA, Lindtjørn E, et al. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: A multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217(1):69.e1–69.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.03.009.
  33. Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kamena A, Tutschek B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): Sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28(6):753–760. DOI: 10.1002/uog.3848.
  34. Eggebø TM, Hassan WA, Salvesen KÅ, Lindtjørn E, Lees CC. Sonographic prediction of vaginal delivery in prolonged labor: A two-center study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014;43(2):195–201. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13210.
  35. Abdelsameea Ibrahim G, Soliman Nasr A, Atta F, Reda M, Abdelghany H, El-Demiry NM, et al. The assessment of intrapartum transperineal ultrasonographic parameters for their effectiveness in evaluation of progress of labor and prediction of mode of delivery in Egyptian women. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2021 [cited April 8, 2023];9(B):1037–1043. Available from:
  36. Ashwal E, Fan IY, Berger H, Livne MY, Hiersch L, Aviram A, et al. The association between fetal head station at the first diagnosis of the second stage of labor and delivery outcomes. Am Obstet Gyanecol 2021;224(3):306.e1–e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.006.
  37. Kasbaoui S, Séverac F, Aïssi G, Gaudineau A, Lecointre L, Akladios C, et al. Predicting the difficulty of operative vaginal delivery by ultrasound measurement of fetal head station. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(5):507.e1–e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.007.
  38. Iliescu DG, Belciug S, Ivanescu RC, Dragusin RC, Cara ML, Laurentiu D. Prediction of labor outcome pilot study: Evaluation of primiparous women at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022;4(6):100711. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100711.
  39. Shrivastava A, Trivedi KA, Makwana RV. The occiput-spine angle and fetal head deflexion during the first stage of labor. Indian J Obstet Gynaecol 2019;7(1). DOI: 10.21088/ijog.2321.1636.7119.13.
  40. Sweed MS, Allam IF, Ashoush SA, Marwan OA, NasrElDin EA. Sonopartogram versus conventional partogram for monitoring progress of labor: A prospective observational study. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020;51(170). DOI: 10.1186/s43055-020-00295-y.
  41. Ali J, Hebbar S. Ultrasound assessment of foetal head-perineum distance prior to induction of labour as a predictor of successful vaginal delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2019;69(2):129–135. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-018-1120-x.
  42. Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, Puertas A, Nicolaides KH. What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36(4):493–499. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7709.
  43. Hanidu A, Usman S, Kovalenko M, and Lees C. OC02.03: The “intrapartum app”: Prediction of vaginal delivery from first and repeat assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022;60:5–5. DOI: 10.1002/uog.24996.
  44. Dira LM, Tudorache S, Antsaklis P, Daskalakis G, Themistoklis D, Belciug S, et al. Sonographic evaluation of the mechanism of active labor (SonoLabor study): Observational study protocol regarding the implementation of the sonopartogram. BMJ Open 2021;11(9):e047188. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047188.
  45. Sonopartogram. The Next Step in the Delivery Room (SONOLABOR). Available from:
  46. Wilkinson M, Usman S, Barton H, Lees CC. The views of pregnant women, midwives, and a women's panel on intrapartum ultrasound research: A pilot study. Australas J Ultrasound Med 2019;22(3): 186–190. DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12162.
  47. Van Adrichem A, Faes E, Kinget K, Jacquemyn Y. Intrapartum ultrasound: Viewpoint of midwives and parturient women and reproducibility. Int J Womens's Health 2018;10:251–256. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S155865.
  48. Usman S, Hanidu A, Kovalenko M, Hassan WA, Lees C. The sonopartogram. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023;228(5):S997–S1016. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.06.027.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.