Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

L’échographie pour le diagnostic d’engagement

  • Chapter
42es Journées nationales de la Société Française de Médecine Périnatale (Montpellier 17–19 octobre 2012)

  • 383 Accesses

Résumé

L’engagement est une notion mécanique essentielle dans le phénomène de la parturition et sa dépendance avec la possibilité d’un accouchement par les voies naturelles est certaine. L’approche clinique du diagnostic d’engagement est très subjective et soumise à des taux importants d’erreur par excès ou par défaut. L’échographie a déjà fait la preuve de son intérêt dans le diagnostic de variété de présentation et permet également de localiser des repères foetaux qui proposent d’évaluer ou d’extrapoler la hauteur de la présentation dans l’excavation pelvienne. Différentes techniques existent à ce jour.

Ce travail se propose de faire une analyse exhaustive de la littérature sur le sujet.

Même si des études complémentaires restent à faire, l’échographie transpérinéale avec mesure de la distance périnée-présentation apparaît extrêmement intéressante pour une utilisation large avant la pratique d’un accouchement assisté. Cette technique est simple, d’apprentissage aisé, ne nécessitant pas un matériel spécifique et est basée sur le même principe que la classification internationale du niveau de présentation dans l’excavation pelvienne (distance en cm par rapport à un repère maternel).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corinne D, et al. (2005) Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 123: 193–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O (2002) Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19: 258–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O (2002) Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19: 264–268.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Knight D, Newnham JP, McKenna M, Evans S (1993) A comparison of abdominal and vaginal examinations for the diagnosis of engagement of the fetal head. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 33: 154–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sentilhes L, Gillard P, Descamps P, Fournié A (2008) Indications et prérequis à la réalisation d’une extraction instrumentale: quand, comment et où ? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 37(Suppl. 8): S188–S201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Riethmuller D, Teffaud O, Schaal JP, Maillet R (1998) Conduite à tenir avant extraction instrumentale devant des difficultés de diagnostic de variété d’une présentation du sommet: intérêt de l’échographie. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 27: 455–456

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, et al. (2003) Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 437–440

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sherer DM, Abulafia O (2003) Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21: 430–436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL (1997) Obstetrics: Normal and problem pregnancies. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham GR, Mac Donald PC, Grant NF, et al. (1993) Williams Obstetrics. 19th ed. Appleton and Lange, Norwalk, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  11. Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR (1965) Station of the fetal presenting part II: Effect on the course of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 93: 530–536

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Roshanfekr D, Blakemore KJ, Lee J, et al. (1999) Station at onset of active labor in nulliparous patients and risk of caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 93: 329–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schaal JP, Maillet R, Riethmuller D (1998) Mécanique et Techniques Obstétricales. 2e édition. Montpellier, Sauramps

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shin KS, Brubaker KL, Ackerson LM (2004) Risk of caesarean delivery in nulliparous women at grater than 41 weeks’ gestatinal age with an unengaged vertex. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190: 129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Murphy K, Shah L, Cohen WR (1998) Labor and delivery in nulliparous women who present with an unengaged fetal head. J Perinatol 18: 122–125

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Oboro VO, Tabowei TO, Bosah JO (2005) Fetal station at the time of labour arrest and risk of caesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol 25: 20–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Falzone S, Chauhan SP, Mobley JA, et al. (1998) Unengaged vertex in nulliparous women in active labor. A risk factor for cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 43: 676–680

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Buchmann E, Libhaber E (2008) Interobserver agreement in intrapartum estimation of fetal head station. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101: 285–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, et al. (2005) 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 192: 868–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Riethmuller D, Roth P, Martin A, et al. (2004) Apports de l’échographie en salle de travail. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32: 427–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaudineau A, Vayssière C (2008) Place de l’échographie en salle de naissance. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 36: 261–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rozenberg P, Porcher R, Salomon LJ, et al. (2008) Comparison of the learning curves of digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31: 332–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dietz HP, Lanzarone V (2005) Measuring engagement of the fetal head: validity and reproducibility of a new ultrasound technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25: 165–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dietz HP, Haylen BT, Broome J (2001) Ultrasound in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18: 511–514

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dietz HP, Wilson PD (1998) Anatomical assessment of the bladder outlet and proximal urethra using ultrasound and videocystourethrography. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 9: 365–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dietz HP, Moore KH (2003) Pelvic organ mobility is associated with delivery mode. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 43: 70–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, et al. (2006) Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 753–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, et al. (2010) What is the most reliable ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36: 493–499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kalache KD, Dückelmann AM, Michaelis SA, et al. (2009) Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the’ angle of progression’ predict the mode of delivery? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33: 326–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Barbera AF, Pombar X, Perugino G, et al. (2009) A new method to assess fetal head descent in labor with transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33: 313–319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Dückelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michaelis SA, et al. (2010) Measurement of fetal head descent using the’ angle of progression’ on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35: 216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KÅ, Eggebø TM (2011) Prediction of delivery mode with transperineal ultrasound in women with prolonged first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37: 702–708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Barbera AF, Imani F, Becker T, et al. (2009) Anatomic relationship between the pubic symphysis and ischial spines and its clinical significance in the assessment of fetal head engagement and station during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33: 320–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Slowinski T, et al. (2011) Relationship between fetal head station established using an open magnetic resonance imaging scanner and the angle of progression determined by transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37: 712–716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bamberg C, Scheuermann S, Fotopoulou C, et al. (2012) Angle of progression measurements of fetal head at term: a systematic comparison between open magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206: 161.e1–161.e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ghi T, Contro E, Farina A, et al. (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in monitoring the progression of labor: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36: 500–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, et al. (2009) Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33: 331–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Torkildsen EA, Salvesen KÅ, Eggebø TM (2012) Agreement between two-and three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound methods in assessing fetal head descent in the first stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39: 310–315

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Eggebo TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, et al. (2006) Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27: 387–391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Eggebø TM, Heien C, Økland I, et al. (2008) Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32: 199–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Maticot-Baptista D, Ramanah R, Collin A, et al. (2009) Diagnostic échographique d’engagement de la présentation fœtale. à propos d’une série préliminaire française. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 38: 474–480

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rivaux G, Dedet B, Delarue E, et al. (2012) Engagement de la tête fœtale: échographie transpérinéale, un nouvel outil diagnostique ? Gynecol Obstet Fertil 40: 148–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Raia-Barjat T, Fanget C, Trombert B, et al. (2012) Étude préliminaire du diagnostic d’engagement par une échographie transpérinéale avant une extraction instrumentale. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 41: 346–352

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Nizard J, Haberman S, Paltieli Y, et al. (2009) Determination of fetal head station and position during labor: a new technique that combines ultrasound and a position-tracking system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200: 404.e1–404.e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Haberman S, Paltieli Y, Gonen R, et al. (2011) Association between ultrasound-based assessment of fetal head station and clinically assessed cervical dilatation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37: 709–711

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, Hôpital Saint-Jacques, 2, place St-Jacques, 25030, Besançon Cedex, France

    D. Riethmuller, D. Maticot-Baptista, N. Mottet, A. Martin, R. Ramanah & R. Maillet

Authors
  1. D. Riethmuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Maticot-Baptista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Mottet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Ramanah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Maillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag France

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Riethmuller, D., Maticot-Baptista, D., Mottet, N., Martin, A., Ramanah, R., Maillet, R. (2013). L’échographie pour le diagnostic d’engagement. In: 42es Journées nationales de la Société Française de Médecine Périnatale (Montpellier 17–19 octobre 2012). Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0385-2_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0385-2_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0384-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0385-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation