Table 7 Impact of pelvimetry on stillbirth and perinatal outcomes
From: Reducing stillbirths: screening and monitoring during pregnancy and labour
Source | Location and Type of Study | Intervention | Stillbirths/Perinatal Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
Reviews and meta-analyses | |||
Pattinson et al. 1997 [56] | South Africa, U.S.A. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 4 RCTs included (N = 895 women). | Assessed the effects of pelvimetry performed antenatally, intrapartum or postpartum (intervention) vs. no pelvimetry (controls) on PMR. | PMR: OR = 0.51 (95% CI: 0.18–1.42) [NS]. [5/449 vs. 10/446 in intervention vs. control groups, respectively]. |
Observational studies | |||
Fine et al. 1980 [55] | Retrospective study. N = 100 X-ray pelvimetry studies of cephalic presentations. | Compared the Thoms method of interpretation to the modified Ball technique for x-ray pelvimetry (comparing both to manual assessment of the pelvis) as prognostic indicators for safe vaginal delivery. | Uneventful nonoperative vaginal deliveries: 28.6% of patients with either inlet or midpelvic disproportion by the Thoms method, and in 22.5% of women with absolute disproportion in either plane by the modified Ball method. Prediction of obstetric outcome: Neither technique significantly more accurate than manual assessment, or than the other. |