» Articles » PMID: 22273078

Transabdominal Evaluation of Uterine Cervical Length During Pregnancy Fails to Identify a Substantial Number of Women with a Short Cervix

Overview
Publisher Informa Healthcare
Date 2012 Jan 26
PMID 22273078
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of transabdominal sonographic measurement of cervical length in identifying patients with a short cervix.

Methods: Cervical length was measured in 220 pregnant women using transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound (US). Reproducibility and agreement between and within both methods were assessed. The diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal US for identifying cases with a cervical length <25 mm was evaluated.

Results: Twenty-one out of 220 cases (9.5%) had a cervical length <25 mm by transvaginal US. Only 43% (n = 9) of patients with a short cervix were correctly identified by transabdominal US. In patients with a cervical length of <25 mm by transvaginal US, transabdominal measurement of the cervix overestimated this parameter by an average of 8 mm (95% LOAs, -26.4 to 10.5 mm). Among women without a short cervix, transabdominal US underestimated cervical length on average (LOA) by 1.1 mm (95% LOAs, -11.0 to 13.2 mm). Transvaginal US was also more reproducible (intraclass correlation coefficient: (ICC) (0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.97) based on comparisons between 2D images and immediately acquired 3D volume datasets relative to transabdominal US (ICC: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84). Transvaginal US detected 13 cases with funneling and six cases with sludge whereas only three cases of funneling and one of sludge were detected by transabdominal US.

Conclusion: Transabdominal measurement overestimated cervical LOA by 8 mm among women with a short cervix and resulted in the underdiagnosis of 57% of cases.

Citing Articles

Comparing transabdominal and transvaginal cervical length measurements at mid-trimester fetal anomaly scan: The impact of bladder fullness and lower uterine contractions.

Beaver H, Lanzarone V, Low G Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2024; 27(4):218-228.

PMID: 39734615 PMC: 11671743. DOI: 10.1002/ajum.12409.


Preterm Birth: Screening and Prediction.

Creswell L, Rolnik D, Lindow S, OGorman N Int J Womens Health. 2023; 15:1981-1997.

PMID: 38146587 PMC: 10749552. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S436624.


Prediction of labour onset in women who present with symptoms of preterm labour using cervical length.

Wong T, Yong X, Tung J, Lee B, Chan J, Du R BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):359.

PMID: 33952198 PMC: 8097783. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03828-z.


Cervical Assessment for Predicting Preterm Birth-Cervical Length and Beyond.

Reicher L, Fouks Y, Yogev Y J Clin Med. 2021; 10(4).

PMID: 33562187 PMC: 7915684. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040627.


Current Approaches to Risk Assessment and Prevention of Preterm Birth-A Continuing Public Health Crisis.

Biggio Jr J Ochsner J. 2021; 20(4):426-433.

PMID: 33408582 PMC: 7755547. DOI: 10.31486/toj.20.0005.


References
1.
Andersen H, Nugent C, Wanty S, Hayashi R . Prediction of risk for preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 163(3):859-67. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(90)91084-p. View

2.
Espinoza J, Goncalves L, Romero R, Nien J, Stites S, Kim Y . The prevalence and clinical significance of amniotic fluid 'sludge' in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 25(4):346-52. DOI: 10.1002/uog.1871. View

3.
Kimber-Trojnar Z, Patro-Malysza J, Leszczynska-Gorzelak B, Marciniak B, Oleszczuk J . Pessary use for the treatment of cervical incompetence and prevention of preterm labour. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 23(12):1493-9. DOI: 10.3109/14767051003678093. View

4.
Ecsedy M, Varsanyi B, Szigeti A, Szrnka G, Nemeth J, Recsan Z . Cone function in children with a history of preterm birth. Doc Ophthalmol. 2011; 122(3):141-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-011-9268-z. View

5.
Wilson-Costello D . Risk factors for neurologic impairment among very low-birth-weight infants. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2001; 8(2):120-6. DOI: 10.1053/spen.2001.25228. View