ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04651309Updated Dec 3, 2020

Assessment of Labour Progress by Intrapartum Ultrasound

An interventional study of Transperineal Ultrasound in Pregnancy Related, Fever and Chorioamnionitis, sponsored by Kaplan Medical Center. Completed at 1 site in Israel. Open to female participants, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-12-03.

Sponsored by Kaplan Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 1 year 2 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Aug 2019, registered Nov 2020).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
180
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Assessment of labor progress via digital exams is considered the standard of care in most delivery rooms. However, this method can be stressful, painful and imprecise and multiple exams increase the risk for chorioamnionitis. Trans-perineal ultrasound (TPUS) was found to be an objective noninvasive way to monitor labor progress. The study aim is to investigate whether, in nulliparous women, the use of TPUS during labor can reduce the number of vaginal exams and the incidence of chorioamnionitis.

Read the detailed description

The prevalence of chorioamnionitis in term deliveries is 1-5% and in preterm deliveries the numbers can be as high as 25%. Most infections are a result of an ascending infection of the normal vaginal flora. Among risk factors are nulliparity, rupture of membranes, an extended duration of labor, multiple vaginal examinations and GBS colonization.

The digital vaginal examination remains to this day the standard method for evaluating the patient's cervical status. However, this method is both highly subjective as well as painful and stressogenic for the patients.

In recent years there has been great progress in the field of translabial/transperineal sonography. There have been several studies which showed that this technique could be as useful as digital examinations in helping clinicians predict the course of labor. Recent studies demonstrate that using transperineal sonography can reduce the perception of pain compared with routine digital vaginal examinations. Even so, there has been little evidence as to whether using perineal ultrasound may also reduce peripartum and puerperal infections and if using sonography and refraining from digital examinations affects the course and duration of labor.

Our objective is to evaluate whether the incidence of chorioamnionitis or fever can be decreased. This goal would hopefully be achieved by assessing the progression of labor using mostly transperineal ultrasound, thus avoiding digital vaginal examination as much as possible.

The study would focus on primigravid women as they are known to be in a higher risk for infection and also other potential risk factors such as GBS carriers and PROM.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pregnancy Related
  • Fever
  • Chorioamnionitis
  • Labor Complication
03

In context

Fever

438 studies on the registry are indexed under Fever; 55 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 180 is above the median of 123 across 271 interventional studies indexed under Fever.

Browse Fever studies →

Lead sponsor

Kaplan Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 37 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Primigravida
  • Gestational age ≥ 37 weeks (according to 1st trimester sonography)
  • Single fetus •Cephalic presentation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

o Other known active infection (such as URTI, UTI)

  • Women who are taking therapy
  • Women who arrived in active labor and delivered before being assessed by a physician.
  • Women with for vaginal birth
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
180 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Other
    Ultrasound group

    Labor progress assessed by US, avoiding digital exams as much as possible;

    Other: Transperineal Ultrasound

  • No intervention
    Control group

    Labor progress assessed according to the regular protocol

Interventions

  • OtherTransperineal Ultrasound

    The ultrasound examination will be conducted using the technique described by Hassan et al (2013). Briefly, transperineal ultrasound images are obtained by placing a covered transducer between the labia below the symphysis pubis. Small lateral movements of the probe are then made to align the ultrasound beam in a midsagittal orientation to include the whole cervical length after which the probe is rotated 90 degrees in order to measure the cervical dilatation. The probe is rotated up and down until the echogenic circle of the cervix is seen. Please note that this technique is widely used within the delivery room and that the ultrasound machine that will be used is frequently used within the delivery room.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Fever and infection rates in each of the study arms

    Intrapartum and post partum fever rates will be evaluated in both the study and the control groups.

    Time frame: From admission to hospital for labor until 2 week post-partum

  2. Number of digital exams in each of the study arms

    The number of digital exams will be counted in each of the study arms

    Time frame: From admission to hospital until delivery

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Maya Oberman
    Reẖovot, 123456, Israel
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Gabbe, Steven G, Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies , Seventh edition. ..2017
  • Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL, Farine D, Ohlsson A, Wang EE, Haque K, Weston JA, Hewson SA, Ohel G, Hodnett ED. International Multicentre Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Study: evaluation of predictors of clinical chorioamnionitis and postpartum fever in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Nov;177(5):1024-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70007-3. PubMed 9396886 ↗
  • Benediktsdottir S, Eggebo TM, Salvesen KA. Agreement between transperineal ultrasound measurements and digital examinations of cervical dilatation during labor. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Oct 24;15:273. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0704-z. PubMed 26496894 ↗
  • Yuce T, Kalafat E, Koc A. Transperineal ultrasonography for labor management: accuracy and reliability. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Jul;94(7):760-765. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12649. Epub 2015 May 5. PubMed 25846302 ↗
  • Hassan WA, Eggebo T, Ferguson M, Gillett A, Studd J, Pasupathy D, Lees CC. The sonopartogram: a novel method for recording progress of labor by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;43(2):189-94. doi: 10.1002/uog.13212. PubMed 24105734 ↗
  • Seval MM, Yuce T, Kalafat E, Duman B, Aker SS, Kumbasar H, Koc A. Comparison of effects of digital vaginal examination with transperineal ultrasound during labor on pain and anxiety levels: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;48(6):695-700. doi: 10.1002/uog.15994. Epub 2016 Nov 8. PubMed 27300158 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Aug 2019 to primary completion in Sep 2020, 12 months.

Of 66 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Fever, half reached primary completion within 17 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 7 and three quarters within 30. This study's 12 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 74 studies reached it within 16 months; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 30.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Nov 15, 2020
First posted
Dec 3, 2020
StartActual
Aug 27, 2019
Primary completionActual
Sep 5, 2020
CompletionActual
Sep 5, 2020
Last update
Dec 3, 2020
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 3, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04651309
Lead sponsor
Kaplan Medical Center
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 3, 2020
Start date
Aug 27, 2019
Primary completion
Sep 5, 2020
Completion
Sep 5, 2020
Last update
Dec 3, 2020

Study contacts

Maya Oberman, MD
principal investigator · Kaplan Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion