Redefining Active Labor: Comparing Maternal and Foetal Outcomes Using 4 Cm Versus 6 Cm Cervical Dilatation Thresholds on The Who Partograph
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55489/ijmr.1302202580Keywords:
Partograph, Active phase, Cervical dilatation, Labor outcomes, Cesarean section, Maternal-fetal healthAbstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare labor outcomes using the existing World Health Organization (WHO) partograph guideline (active phase at 4 cm cervical dilatation) versus a proposed guideline (6 cm) in low-risk women with spontaneous labor, assessing maternal and fetal outcomes and intervention rates.
Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted from December 2019 to November 2021 at Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Karad, India. A total of 300 women with singleton, cephalic pregnancies were equally randomized into two groups: Group A (partograph initiated at 4 cm, n=150) and Group B (6 cm, n=150). Exclusion criteria included high-risk pregnancies and emergency delivery needs. Outcomes measured included active phase duration, cervical dilatation rate, mode of delivery, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Data were analyzed using t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance at P<0.05.
Results: Group B exhibited a shorter mean active phase duration (3.22±1.23 hours vs. 4.64±1.78 hours, P<0.001) and faster dilatation rate (2.42±0.80 cm/hour vs. 1.49±0.42 cm/hour, P<0.001). Normal labor progression was higher in Group B (74.67% vs. 46.00%, P<0.001), with fewer crossing the action line (10.00% vs. 16.67%, P=0.089). Cesarean rates (14.00% vs. 22.00%, P=0.240) and NICU admissions (4.00% vs. 6.00%, P=0.426) were lower in Group B, though not significantly.
Conclusion: Initiating partograph monitoring at 6 cm enhances labor progression and reduces intervention tendencies without compromising outcomes, supporting its adoption in low-risk pregnancies.
References
1. World Health Organization (WHO). Maternal mortality in 2005. Estimate developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, and the World Bank. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
2. Opiah MM, Ofi AB, Essien EJ, Monjok E. Knowledge and utilization of the partograph among midwives in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2012 Mar;16(1):125-132. PMID: 22783676.
3. Mathai M. The partograph for the prevention of obstructed labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;52(2):256-269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a4f163 PMID: 19407533.
4. Mathews JE, Rajaratnam A, George A, Mathai M. Comparison of two World Health Organization partographs. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Feb;96(2):147-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.08.016 PMid:17254584
5. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 5;11(2):e0148343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 PMid:26849801 PMCid:PMC4743929
6. Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Perils of the new labor management guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;212(4):420-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.09.008 PMid:25218127
7. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187(4):824-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.127142 PMid:12388957
8. Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr;115(4):705-710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d55925 PMid:20308828
9. Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Misguided guidelines for managing labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;212(6):753.e1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.012 PMid:25891996
10. Purwar R, Malik S, Khanam Z, Mishra A. Progression of the first stage of labour, in low risk nulliparas in a South Asian population: a prospective observational study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Nov;41(8):1220-1224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2020.1867967. PMID: 33938356.
11. FRIEDMAN E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954 Dec;68(6):1568-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(54)90311-7 PMid:13207246
12. Friedman EA .Primigravid labor: a graphic statistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955;6:567-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-195512000-00001 PMid:13272981
13. Friedman EA. Labor: clinical evaluation and management.2nd ed. New York (NY): Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1978.
14. Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Fawole B, Mugerwa K, Perdoná G, et al. Progression of the first stage of spontaneous labour: A prospective cohort study in two sub-Saharan African countries. PLoS Med. 2018 Jan 16;15(1):e1002492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002492 PMid:29338000 PMCid:PMC5770022
15. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, Hatjis CG, Ramirez MM, Bailit JL, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1281-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fdef6e PMid:21099592 PMCid:PMC3660040
16. Oladapo OT, Diaz V, BAt M, et al. Cervical dilatation patterns of 'low-risk' women with spontaneous labour and normal perinatal outcomes: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125(8):944-954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14930 PMid:28892266 PMCid:PMC6033146
17. Peisner DB, Rosen MG. Transition from latent to active labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Oct;68(4):448-51. PMID: 3748488.
18. Hendricks CH, Brenner WE, Kraus G. Normal cervical dilation pattern in late pregnancy and labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol1970;106: 1065-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(16)34092-3 PMid:5435658
19. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine , Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:179-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026 PMid:24565430
20. Bedwell C, Levin K, Pett C, Lavender DT. A realist review of the partograph: when and how does it work for labour monitoring? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17(1):31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1213-4 PMid:28086823 PMCid:PMC5237234
21. Munabi-Babigumira S, Glenton C, Lewin S, Fretheim A, Nabudere H. Factors that influence the provision of intrapartum and postnatal care by skilled birth attendants in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 17;11(11):CD011558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011558.pub2. PMID: 29148566; PMCID: PMC5721625.
22. Suzuki R, Horiuchi S, Ohtsu H. Evaluation of the labor curve in nulliparous Japanese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(3):226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.014 PMid:20494329
23. Shi Q, Tan XQ, Liu XR, Tian XB, Qi HB. Labour patterns in Chinese women in Chongqing. BJOG. 2016 Sep;123(Suppl 3):57-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14019 PMid:27627599
24. Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö, Vogel JP, Fawole B, Mugerwa K, Gülmezoglu AM. WHO Better Outcomes in Labour Difficulty (BOLD) project: innovating to improve quality of care around the time of childbirth. Reprod Health. 2015 May 26;12:48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0027-6 PMid:26006170 PMCid:PMC4456059
25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. 2014 (Clinical guideline 109).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sashmi Pandya, NS Kshirsagar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright of their article, with first publication rights granted to Medsci Publications.
