Introduction: Assessment of the size of the female pelvis is an important obstetric practice to identify mothers at risk of cephalopelvic disproportion. Due to the problem of accessing radiological instruments to carry out pelvimetry in health centers of resource-limited countries, clinical pelvimetry remains a routine practice. The present study was aimed at assessing the prediction capability of intertuberous diameter, anterior interspinal diameter, and bi-trochanteric diameters on the pelvic inlet and mid-pelvis diameters as an alternative method to estimate different birth canal parameters.
Subjects and Methods: Institution-based retrospective cross-sectional study design was conducted on randomly selected 423 abdominopelvic computed tomography images of reproductive-age women who visited Sodo Christian hospital from September 2018 to November 2020. Pelvic diameters were measured on a 3D workstation using multiplanar reconstruction and volume rendering images. Pearson’s correlation, partial correlation, and multivariate regression analysis were done for assessing the relationship between the variables by using STATA 16.
Results: The present study demonstrated that the intertuberous diameter (ITD) is a significant predictor of obstetric conjugate diameter (OCD), the transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet (TDI), and interspinous diameter (ISD). A millimeter increase in ITD is associated with 0.552 mm, 0.558 mm, and 0.74 mm increase in OCD, TDI, and ISD, respectively. The TDI is the only lesser pelvis diameter significantly predicted by the anterior interspinal diameter (AISD). A millimeter increase in AISD is associated with a 0.229 mm increase in TDI. Jointly the ITD and AISD were shown to predict 81% of TDI. The bi-trochanteric diameter (BTD) was found statistically insignificant predictor of OCD, TDI, and ISD.
Conclusion: As to the present study, the ITD is a potential predictor of the pelvic inlet and mid pelvic diameters. Besides, only the TDI could be estimated from AISD, whereas the BTD could not estimate any of the birth canal parameters.
Bi-trochanters, Intertuberous diameter, Mid-pelvis, Pelvic inlet, Pelvimetry
2. Kolesova O, Kolesovs A, Vetra J. Age-related trends of lesser pelvic architecture in females and males: a computed tomography pelvimetry study. Anat Cell Biol. 2017; 50(4):265-274. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5768563/
3. Maharaj D. Assessing cephalopelvic disproportion: back to the basics. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010;65(6):387-95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20633305/
4. Organization WH. WHO recommendations on intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience: WHO; 2018. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/intrapartum-care-guidelines/en/
5. Lenhard M, Johnson T, Weckbach S, Nikolaou K, Friese K, Hasbargen U. Three-dimensional pelvimetry by computed tomography. La radiologia medica. 2009;114(5):827. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19551346/
6. Lenhard MS, Johnson TR, Weckbach S, Nikolaou K, Friese K, Hasbargen U. Pelvimetry revisited: analyzing cephalopelvic disproportion. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(3):e107-e11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19443160/
7. Albrich S, Shek K, Krahn U, Dietz H. Measurement of subpubic arch angle by three‐dimensional transperineal ultrasound and impact on vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(4):496-500. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25678020/
8. Siccardi M, Valle C, Di Matteo F, Angius V. A postural approach to the pelvic diameters of obstetrics: the dynamic external pelvimetry test. Cureus. 2019;11(11). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6901367/
9. Rozenholc A, Ako S, Leke R, Boulvain M. The diagnostic accuracy of external pelvimetry and maternal height to predict dystocia in nulliparous women: a study in Cameroon. BJOG: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;114(5):630-5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17439570/
10. Liselele HB, Tshibangu CK, Meuris S. Association between external pelvimetry and vertex delivery complications in African women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(8):673-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10949233/
11. Alijahan R, Kordi M, Poorjavad M, Ebrahimzadeh S. Diagnostic accuracy of maternal anthropometric measurements as predictors for dystocia in nulliparous women. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 2014;19(1):11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917179/#:~:text=Combination%20of%20mothers'%20height%20with,%E2%89%A4155%20cm%20with%20the
12. Perlman S, Raviv-Zilka L, Levinsky D, Gidron A, Achiron R, Gilboa Y, et al. The birth canal: correlation between the pubic arch angle, the interspinous diameter, and the obstetrical conjugate: a computed tomography biometric study in reproductive age women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(19):3255-65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29621904/
13. Liao K, Yu Y, Li Y, Chen L, Peng C, Liu P, et al. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance pelvimetry: a new technique for evaluating the female pelvis in pregnancy. Eur J Radiol. 2018;102:208-12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29685537/
14. Gleason Jr RL, Yigeremu M, Debebe T, Teklu S, Zewdeneh D, Weiler M, et al. A safe, low-cost, easy-to-use 3D camera platform to assess risk of obstructed labor due to cephalopelvic disproportion. PloS one. 2018;13(9):e0203865. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30216374/
15. Korhonen U, Taipale P, Heinonen S. Fetal pelvic index to predict cephalopelvic disproportion–a retrospective clinical cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(6):615-21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25682690/
16. Kim SJ, Kim JH, Lee DW, Kang SY, Lee HN, Kim MJ. Compare the architectural differences in the bony pelvis of Korean women and their association with the mode of delivery by computed tomography. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54(4):171-4. https://www.ogscience.org/journal/view.php?number=965
17. Lalèyè CM, Azonbakin SA, Delmas V, Agossou-Voyèmè A-K, Douard R, Hounnou G, et al. CT pelvimetry of variant pelvis and child birth prognosis. Anat. j. Afr. 2018;7(2):1292-7. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/aja/article/view/177638
18. Deurell M, Worm M. Is CV measurement relevant for the verdict" vaginal delivery prohibited"? Ugeskr Laeger. 2001;163(42):5832-5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11685857/
19. Kolesova O, Vētra J. Predictors of the narrowest pelvic cavity diameter in live females and males. Papers on Anthropology. 2013;22:96-103. https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/PoA/article/view/poa.2013.22.10