Purple line Alteration in prediction of labor progress

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD in Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran. PhD in Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Midwifery, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Professor, Department of Biostatistics, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: The purple line as a purple point around anus that occurs in the majority of women during labor is one of the non-invasive methods for evaluation of labor progress. This study was performed aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of purple line alteration in prediction of labor progress in active phase of labor.
Methods: This diagnostic power study was conducted in 2012 on 258 pregnant women with term pregnancy in vertex presentation and beginning of active phase of labor with the appearance of a purple line who were hospitalized in Ommolbanin Hospital. Vaginal examination and purple line observation in the active phase of labor were measured each hour. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value were calculated after determining the cut-off point. Data were collected using the questionnaires: personal-pregnancy information and labor progress form and information about the purple line. Data were analyzed by SPSS statistical software (version 16), ROC curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Increasing the purple line length at each stage of the cervical dilation was associated with the labor progression at that stage. In 3-5 cm cervical dilation, the length of the purple line ≥85 mm was associated with a sensitivity of 93%, specificity 100% and positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 33.3% and validity 93.22% with labor progress at the same stage and had the highest diagnostic value
Conclusions: Measurement of purple line alteration in the first stage of labor that is, in 3-5 cm cervical dilation, ≥85 mm, 6-8 cm cervical dilation ≥101.5 mm and 9-10 cm cervical dilation ≥110.5 mm was associated with most sensitivity with cervical dilatation and is recommended as a non-invasive method to predict clinical  labor progress in the first stage of delivery.

Keywords

References

  1. Sheiner E, Levy A, Feinstein U, Hallak M, Mazor M. Risk factors and outcome of failure to progress during the first stage of labor: a population-based study. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2002; 81(3):222-6.
  2. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2014; 210(3):179-93.
  3. Neilson JP, Lavender T, Quenby S, Wray S. Obstructed labour: reducing maternal death and disability during pregnancy. British medical bulletin 2003; 67(1):191-204.
  4. Rowe‐Murray HJ, Fisher JR. Baby friendly hospital practices: cesarean section is a persistent barrier to early initiation of breastfeeding. Birth 2002; 29(2):124-31.
  5. Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2011; 205(6):S2-10.
  6. Royal College of Midwives (Great Britain). Learning, Research and Practice Department. Evidence Based Guidelines for Midwifery-led Care in Labour: Good Practice Points. Royal College of Midwives; 2012.
  7. Debra B. Evidence based guidelines for midwifery-led care in labour. The Royal College of Midwives Trust;
  8. Hodnett ED, Downe S, Walsh D. Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane database of systematic reviews; 2012(8).
  9. Duff M. A study of labour (Doctoral dissertation); 2015.
  10. Alijahan R, Kordi M. Risk factors of dystocia in nulliparous women. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences 2014; 39(3):254.
  11. Shepherd A, Cheyne H. The frequency and reasons for vaginal examinations in labour. Women and birth 2013; 26(1):49-54.
  12. Phelps JY, Higby K, Smyth MH, Ward JA, Arredondo F, Mayer AR. Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1995; 173(3):942-5.
  13. Buchmann EJ, Libhaber E. Accuracy of cervical assessment in the active phase of labour. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2007; 114(7):833-7.
  14. Huhn KA, Brost BC. Accuracy of simulated cervical dilation and effacement measurements among practitioners. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2004; 191(5):1797-9.
  15. Lewin D, Fearon B, Hemmings V, Johnson G. Women's experiences of vaginal examinations in labour. Midwifery 2005; 21(3):267-77.
  16. Narchi NZ, da Costa Silveira de Camargo J, Salim NR, de Oliveira Menezes M, Bertolino MM. The use of the" purple line" as an auxiliary clinical method for evaluating the active phase of delivery. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Materno Infantil 2011; 11(3).
  17. Beck CT. Post-traumatic stress disorder due to childbirth: the aftermath. Nursing research. 2004; 53(4):216-24.
  18. Maharaj D. Puerperal pyrexia: a review. Part I. Obstetrical & gynecological survey 2007; 62(6):393-9.
  19. Wong A, Rosh A. Pregnancy. Postpartum Infections. eMedicine; 2017.
  20. Care I. Clinical guideline 55. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2007.
  21. Thompson L. All Wales Clinical Pathway for Normal Labour. Midwifery Matters 2011 (130).
  22. Walsh D. Part three: Assessing womens progress in labour. British Journal of Midwifery 2000; 8(7):449-57.
  23. Letić M. Inaccuracy in cervical dilatation assessment and the progress of labour monitoring. Medical Hypotheses 2003; 60(2):199-201.
  24. Mold JW, Stein HF. The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. Mass Medical Soc; 1986.
  25. Tracy SK, Sullivan E, Wang YA, Black D, Tracy M. Birth outcomes associated with interventions in labour amongst low risk women: a population-based study. Women and Birth 2007; 20(2):41-8.
  26. McKay S, Roberts J. Obstetrics by ear: Maternal and caregiver perceptions of the meaning of maternal sounds during second stage labor. Journal of Nurse‐Midwifery 1990; 35(5):266-73.
  27. Kordi M, Irani M, Esmaily H, Tara F. Relationship between length of purple line and cervical dilation in active phase of labor. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2013; 15(37):6-13.
  28. Irani M, Kordi M, Esmaily H. Relationship between length and width of the purple line and foetal head descent in active phase of labour. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2018; 38(1):10-5.
  29. Enkin M, Keirse M, Neilson OJ. Guide to Effective Care in Prignancy and Childbirth-Oxford univ; 1995.
  30. Healthy people 2020: maternal infant and child health: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion website; 2019 [Available from: https://www.healthygov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/maternal-infant-and-childhealth; 2017
  31. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: Final Data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2019; 68(13):1-47.
  32. Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M. Prevalence and causes of cesarean section in Iran: systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian journal of public health 2014; 43(5):545.
  33. Olsen NS. Abnormal labor. Medscape J Med 2017.
  34. Kyozuka H, Murata T, Fukuda T, Suzuki E, Yazawa R, Yasuda S, et al. Labor dystocia and risk of histological chorioamnionitis and funisitis: a study from a single tertiary referral center. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2021; 21(1):1-8.
  35. Willoughby RE, Nelson KB. Chorioamnionitis and brain injury. Clinics in perinatology 2002; 29(4):603-21.
  36. Wu YW, Colford Jr JM. Chorioamnionitis as a risk factor for cerebral palsy: a meta-analysis. Jama 2000; 284(11):1417-24.
  37. Jobe AH. Antenatal factors and the development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. InSeminars in neonatology 2003; 8(1):9-17.
  38. Ronel D, Wiznitzer A, Sergienko R, Zlotnik A, Sheiner E. Trends, risk factors and pregnancy outcome in women with uterine rupture. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2012; 285(2):317-21.
  39. Vachon-Marceau C, Demers S, Goyet M, Gauthier R, Roberge S, Chaillet N, ET AL. Labor dystocia and the risk of uterine rupture in women with prior cesarean. American journal of perinatology 2016; 33(06):577-83.
  40. Kjærgaard H, Olsen J, Ottesen B, Dykes AK. Incidence and outcomes of dystocia in the active phase of labor in term nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2009; 88(4):402-7.
  41. Pornprasertsuk W, Treetampinich C, Ayudhya NI, Pratak O, Rattanasiri S. Relationship between Alteration of Sacral Pain and Cervical Progression in Latent Phase of Labor: Diagnostic Study. Thai Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008: 97-102.
  42. Kordi M, Irani M, Tara F, Esmaily H. The diagnostic accuracy of purple line in prediction of labor progress in Omolbanin Hospital, Iran. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 2014; 16(11).
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 24, Issue 13
February 2022
Pages 51-58

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics