Impact of Bony Pelvis Type on Mode of Delivery in Reproductive Age Females of District Rahim Yar Khan: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Authors

  • Solmaz Masood
  • Sadia Aman
  • Hira Bushra
  • Hamna Wahid
  • Aneela Ahsan
  • Sanober Faisal

Keywords:

Bony pelvis, mode of delivery, pelvic morphology, cesarean section, X-ray pelvimetry

Abstract

 Background: Among the bony elements of human body, the pelvis always gained importance due to its intricate structure as well as due to its important functional role in childbirth and locomotion.[1] X-ray pelvimetry is being used to determine the type of bony pelvis and its predictive role in mode of delivery in the females. Pelvises can be classified as Gynecoid, android, anthropoid, and platypelloid pelvis. Gynecoid type favors normal birth process but rest of the types hinders natural birth variably depending on their bony morphology, which leads to poor delivery outcomes and need of C-section.

Objective: To Assess the impact of different bony pelvic types on the mode of delivery among reproductive-age females in District Rahim Yar Khan using X-ray pelvimetry.

Study Design: Cross sectional study

Study Setting: Department of Gynecology & Obstetrics and Department of Radiology, Sheikh Zayed Hospital ,Rahim Yar Khan from May 2024 to October 2024.

Methods: The subjects for this study were recruited from the Department of Gynecology & Obstetrics, sheikh Zayed hospital, Rahim Yar Khan.  The females who were admitted in Gynae ward and labor room for spontaneous vaginal delivery and caesarian section were sent to the radiology department for x-ray pelvimetry. X-ray pelvimetry was done in erect posture in both AP and lateral views. On the basis of which type of pelvis was determined. Later on association of type of bony pelvis with mode of delivery, was observed. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test; a p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Data was collected among 384 postpartum females, mean. The majority of 146 (38.0%) had gynecoid pelvis and was most compatible with vaginal delivery, followed by, android pelvis 96 (25.0%), anthropoid pelvis 84 (22.0%) and platypelloid pelvis 58(15.0percent).

Conclusion: Pelvic Morphology, as classified by X-ray pelvimetry, Significantly impacts delivery mode. Pelvic type


assessment may aid obstetricians in predicting delivery outcomes and planning labor management

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

.Polat S, Emir, Isık I, Duygu Vuralli, Öksüzler, Fatma, et al. Evaluation of the association between pelvic diameters and pelvic types on computed tomography images in healthy Turkish females. Int J Morphol. 2023; 41(6): 1781-8. https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v41n6/0717-9502-ijmorphol-41-06-1781.pdf

2. Kjeldsen LL, Blankholm AD, Jurik AG, Salvig JD, Maimburg RD. Pelvic capacity in pregnant women, identified using magnetic resonance imaging. AGOS. 2021; 100(8): 1454-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14168

3. Burgess MD, Lui F. Anatomy, bony pelvis and lower limb: pelvic bones. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551580/

4. Elzanie A, Borger J. Anatomy, bony pelvis and lower limb, gluteus maximus muscle. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538193/

5. Caldwell WE, Moloy HC. Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1933; 26(4): 479-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(33)90194-5

6. Hintermeier S. Variations in the structure of the human pelvis impact on obstetric delivery and pelvic surgery. Int J Anat Var. 2024; 17(12): 709-10. https://doi.org/10.37532/1308-4038.17(12).470]

7. Salo Z, Kreder H, Whyne CM. Influence of pelvic shape on strain patterns: a computational analysis using finite element mesh morphing techniques. J Biomech. 2021; 116: 110207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110207

8. Na ED, Baek MJ, Moon JH, Park CW, Yoon J, Lee H, et al. Predicting mid-pelvic interspinous distance in women using height and pubic arch angle. PLoS ONE. 2023; 18(8): e0289814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289814

9. Dutta DC. Textbook of Obstetrics. 9th ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2018.

10.Lanker S, Andrabi SF, Imran A. Correlation of mode of delivery with ultrasonic measurement of obstetric conjugate. J Res Appl Basic Med Sci. 2021; 7(2): 71-5. https://doi.org/10.52547/rabms.7.2.71

11. Shimaoka R, Takahashi Y, Ono H, Matsui M, Asai K, Iwagaki S. Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetric measurements as predictors for emergent cesarean delivery in obstructed labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023; 19: 100216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100216] 12.Makajeva J, Ashraf M. Delivery, face and brow presentation. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK567727/

13. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2018; 9(9): CD005528. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3

14. Pinho TDC, Silveira MF, Barbosa AP, et al. Association between maternal height and cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Saude Publica. 2020;54:22.

15. Janmohamed A, Fielding-Miller R, Sherin A, et al. Maternal anthropometry and pregnancy outcomes: a study in a rural district of Pakistan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):391.

16. Etikan I, Bala K. Sampling and sampling methods. Biom Biostat Int J. 2017;5(6):00149

17. Munabi IG, Byamugisha J, Luboobi L, Luboga SA, Mirembe F. Relationship between maternal pelvis height and other anthropometric measurements in a multisite cohort of Ugandan mothers. Pan Afr Med J. 2016; 24: 257. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2016.24.257.9889

18. Pavličev M, Romero R, Mitteroecker P. Evolution of the human pelvis and obstructed labor: new explanations of an old obstetrical dilemma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 222(1): 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.06.043

19. Salk I, Cetin M, Salk S, Cetin A. Determining the incidence of gynecoid pelvis using three-dimensional computed tomography in nonpregnant multiparous women. Med Princ Pract. 2016; 25(1): 40-8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000440808

20. Vučinić N, Paulsen F, Milinkov M, Nikolić MB, Todorović ST, Knezi N, et al. A survey of pelvic types on computed tomography images. Annals Anat. 2022; 243: 151942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2022.151942

21.Mirgalobayat S, Ghahari L, Allahqoli L, Mostafavi SRS, Safari K, Rikhtehgar M, et al. Evaluation of the link between pelvimetry based on computed tomography and predicting status’ delivery. J Contemp Med Sci. 2019; 5(6): 313-6. https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.12201904

Downloads

Published

2025-12-20

How to Cite

1.
Masood S, Aman S, Bushra H, Wahid H, Ahsan A, Faisal S. Impact of Bony Pelvis Type on Mode of Delivery in Reproductive Age Females of District Rahim Yar Khan: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025 Dec. 20 [cited 2026 Jan. 20];14(33S):103-8. Available from: https://jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/9731

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 33S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.