Methods of sonographic cervical length measurement in pregnancy: A review of the literature

References

• Gramellini D, Fieni S, Molina E, Berretta R, Vadora E. Transvaginal sonographic cervical length changes during normal pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21: 227–232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoesli I M, Strutas D, Tercanli S, Holzgreve W. Charts for cervical length in singleton pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 82: 161–165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushnir O, Vigil D A, Izquierdo L, Schiff M, Curet L B. Vaginal ultrasonographic assessment of cervical length changes during normal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 991–993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okitsu O, Mimura T, Nakayama T, Aono T. Early prediction of preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992; 2: 402–409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongsong T, Kamprapanth P, Pitaksakorn J. Cervical length in normal pregnancy as measured by transvaginal sonography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997; 58: 313–315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorzoli A, Soliani A, Perra M, Caravelli E, Galimberti A, Nicolini U. Cervical changes throughout pregnancy as assessed by transvaginal sonography. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 960–964
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arabin B, Aardenburg R, van Eyck J. Maternal position and ultrasonic cervical assessment in multiple pregnancy. Preliminary observations. J Reprod Med 1997; 42: 719–724
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita M M, Brizot M D, Liao A W, Bernath T, Cury L, Neto J D, Zugaib M. Reference range for cervical length in twin pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 856–859
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergelin I, Valentin L. Cervical changes in twin pregnancies observed by transvaginal ultrasound during the latter half of pregnancy: A longitudinal, observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 556–563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramin K D, Ogburn P L, Mulholland T A, Breckle R J, Ramsey P S. Ultrasonographic assessment of cervical length in triplet pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 1442–1445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook C M, Ellwood D A. A longitudinal study of the cervix in pregnancy using transvaginal ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 16–18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergelin I, Valentin L. Normal cervical changes in parous women during the second half of pregnancy—a prospective, longitudinal ultrasound study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 31–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergelin I, Valentin L. Patterns of normal change in cervical length and width during pregnancy in nulliparous women: A prospective, longitudinal ultrasound study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 217–222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liabsuetrakul T, Suntharasaj T, Suwanrath C, Leetanaporn R, Rattanaprueksachart R, Tuntiseranee P. Serial translabial sonographic measurement of cervical dimensions between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant Thai women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 168–173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath V C, Southall T R, Souka A P, Novakov A, Nicolaides K H. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: Relation to demographic characteristics and previous obstetric history. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 304–311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendler I, Goldenberg R L, Mercer B M, Iams J D, Meis P J, Moawad A H, MacPherson C A, Caritis S N, Miodovnik M, Menard K M, et al. The Preterm Prediction study: Association between maternal body mass index and spontaneous and indicated preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 882–886
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palma-Dias R S, Fonseca M M, Stein N R, Schmidt A P, Magalhaes J A. Relation of cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation to demographic characteristics and obstetric history. Braz J Med Biol Res 2004; 37: 737–744
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To M S, Skentou C, Cicero S, Nicolaides K H. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-weeks' scan: Problems with transabdominal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 292–296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonek J, Shellhaas C. Cervical sonography: A review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 11: 71–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen J. Evaluation of the cervix by ultrasound for the prediction of preterm birth. Clin Perinatol 2003; 30: 735–755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welsh A, Nicolaides K. Cervical screening for preterm delivery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 14: 195–202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen J, Iams J D. What we have learned about cervical ultrasound. Semin Perinatol 2003; 27: 194–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo D F, Iams J D. Cervical length and preterm labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43: 735–745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honest H, Bachmann L M, Coomarasamy A, Gupta J K, Kleijnen J, Khan K S. Accuracy of cervical transvaginal sonography in predicting preterm birth: A systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 305–322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozenberg P, Gillet A, Ville Y. Transvaginal sonographic examination of the cervix in asymptomatic pregnant women: Review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 302–311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althuisius S M, Dekker G A, van Geijn H P. Cervical incompetence: A reappraisal of an obstetric controversy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002; 57: 377–387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iams J D. Prediction and early detection of preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 402–412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman E R, Benito C, Hanley M. Sonography in the evaluation of the cervix during pregnancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 99–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maymon R, Shulman A, Ariely S, Halperin R, Caspi E, Weinraub Z. Sonographic assessment of cervical changes during pregnancy and delivery: Current concepts. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996; 67: 149–155
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mason G C, Maresh M J. Alterations in bladder volume and the ultrasound appearance of the cervix. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 457–458
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andersen H F. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1991; 19: 77–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeanty P, d'Alton M, Romero R, Hobbins J C. Perineal scanning. Am J Perinatol 1986; 3: 289–295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertzberg B S, Bowie J D, Weber T M, Carroll B A, Kliewer M A, Jordan S G. Sonography of the cervix during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy: Value of the transperineal approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157: 73–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertzberg B S, Livingston E, Delong D M, McNally P J, Fazekas C K, Kliewer M A. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix: Transperineal versus endovaginal imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 1071–1078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, To M S, Nicolaides K H. Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: Comparison of transvaginal and transperineal–translabial ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 335–340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen J, Neely C, Northen U. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: A blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 780–783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilianti M, Azuaga A, Calderon F, Redondo C. Transperineal sonography in 2nd trimester to term pregnancy and early labor. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10: 481–485
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carr D B, Smith K, Parsons L, Chansky K, Shields L E. Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: Agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 554–558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdemir I, Demirci F, Yucel O. Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix at each trimester in normal pregnant women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 45: 191–194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtzman J T, Goldsmith L J, Gall S A, Spinnato J A. Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: A blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 852–857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertzberg B S, Kliewer M A, Baumeister L A, McNally P B, Fazekas C K. Optimizing transperineal sonographic imaging of the cervix: The hip elevation technique. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13: 933–936
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valentin L, Bergelin I. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of cervical length and width in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 256–262
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazanakis M, Marsh M S, Brockbank E, Economides D L. Assessment of the cervix in the third trimester of pregnancy using transvaginal ultrasound scanning. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002; 105: 31–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger M, Weber-Rossler T, Willmann M. Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: An interobserver study and new standards to improve the interobserver variability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9: 188–193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vayssiere C, Moriniere C, Camus E, Le Strat Y, Poty L, Fermanian J, Ville Y. Measuring cervical length with ultrasound: Evaluation of the procedures and duration of a learning method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 575–579
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yost N P, Bloom S L, Twickler D M, Leveno K J. Pitfalls in ultrasonic cervical length measurement for predicting pre-term birth. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 510–516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To M S, Skentou C, Chan C, Zagaliki A, Nicolaides K H. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-week scan: Standardizing techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 217–219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazici G, Yildiz A, Tiras M B, Arslan M, Kanik A, Oz U. Comparison of transperineal and transvaginal sonography in predicting preterm delivery. J Clin Ultrasound 2004; 32: 225–230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berghella V, Kuhlman K, Weiner S, Texeira L, Wapner R J. Cervical funneling: Sonographic criteria predictive of preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 161–166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zilianti M, Azuaga A, Calderon F, Pages G, Mendoza G. Monitoring the effacement of the uterine cervix by transperineal sonography: A new perspective. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14: 719–724
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertzberg B S, Kliewer M A, Farrell T A, Delong D M. Spontaneously changing gravid cervix: Clinical implications an prognostic features. Radiology 1995; 196: 721–724
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brieger G M, Ning X H, Dawkins R R, Ying K Q, Weng C, Chang A M, Haines C J. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical dynamics during the third trimester of normal pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 118–122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crane J M, Van den Hof M, Armson B A, Liston R. Transvaginal ultrasound in the prediction of preterm delivery: Singleton and twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 357–363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen J, Yost N, Berghella V, Thom E, Swain M, Dildy G A, Miodovnik M, Langer O, Sibai B, McNellis D. Mid-trimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. JAMA 2001; 286: 1340–1348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yost N P, Owen J, Berghella V, MacPherson C, Swain M, Dildy G A, Miodovnik M, Langer O, Sibai B. Second-trimester cervical sonography: Features other than cervical length to predict spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 457–462
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To M S, Skentou C, Liao A W, Cacho A, Nicolaides K H. Cervical length and funneling at 23 weeks of gestation in the prediction of spontaneous early preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 200–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman E R, Walters C, Ananth C V, O'Reilly-Green C, Benito C W, Palermo A, Vintzileos A M. A comparison of sonographic cervical parameters in predicting spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk singleton gestations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 204–210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust O A, Atlas R O, Kimmel S, Roberts W E, Hess L W. Does the presence of a funnel increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcome in a patient with a short cervix?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1060–1066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung T N, Pang M W, Leung T Y, Poon C F, Wong S M, Lau T K. Cervical length at 18–22 weeks of gestation for prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in Hong Kong Chinese women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 713–717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Carvalho M H, Bittar R E, Brizot Mde L, Bicudo C, Zugaib M. Prediction of preterm delivery in the second trimester. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 532–536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang J H, Kuhlman K, Daly S, Berghella V. Prediction of preterm birth by second trimester cervical sonography in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 288–291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews W W, Copper R, Hauth J C, Goldenberg R L, Neely C, Dubard M. Second-trimester cervical ultrasound: Associations with increased risk for recurrent early spontaneous delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 222–226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parulekar S G, Kiwi R. Dynamic incompetent cervix uteri. Sonographic observations. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7: 481–485
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman E R, Rosenberg J C, Houlihan C, Ivan J, Waldron R, Knuppel R. A new method using vaginal ultrasound and transfundal pressure to evaluate the asymptomatic incompetent cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83: 248–252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald R, Smith P, Vyas S. Cervical incompetence: The use of transvaginal sonography to provide an objective diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 211–216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman E R, Vintzileos A M, McLean D A, Martins M E, Benito C W, Hanley M L. The natural history of a positive response to transfundal pressure in women at risk for cervical incompetence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 634–638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong G, Levine D, Ludmir J. Maternal postural challenge as a functional test for cervical incompetence. J Ultrasound Med 1997; 16: 169–175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman E R, Pisatowski D M, Vintzileos A M, Benito C W, Hanley M L, Ananth C V. A comparison of ultrasonographically detected cervical changes in response to transfundal pressure, coughing, and standing in predicting cervical incompetence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 660–665
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meath A I, Ramsey P S, Mulholland T A, Rosenquist R G, Lesnick T, Ramin K D. Comparative longitudinal study of cervical length and induced shortening changes among singleton, twin, and triplet pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1410–1415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arabin B, van Eyck J. Sonographic diagnosis of cervical incompetence for prevention and management. Ultrasound Rev Obstet Gynecol 2001; 1: 195–204
   Google Scholar
• Arabin B, Hübener M, Halbesma J, van Eyck J. Sonographic diagnosis of cervical incompetence in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound Rev Obstet Gynecol 2001; 1: 340–349
   Google Scholar
• Karis J P, Hertzberg B S, Bowie J D. Sonographic diagnosis of premature cervical dilatation. Potential pitfall due to lower uterine segment contractions. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10: 83–87
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Brien J M, Allen A A, Barton J R. Intravaginal saline as a contrast agent for cervical sonography in the obstetric patient. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 137–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson J N, Economy K E, Feinberg B B, Norwitz E R. Cervical hydrosonography in pregnancy to assess cervical length by transabdominal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 1023–1025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elghorori M R, Hassan I, Morris E, Fraser D. Intra-vaginal hydrosonography and cervical length assessment in pregnant women before induction of labour: A modified technique. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 25: 435–439
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Brien J M, Houseman B A, Allen A A, Barton J R. Methylcellulose gel is a superior contrast agent for ultrasound examination of the cervix in obstetric patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 149–151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bega G, Lev-Toaff A, Kuhlman K, Berghella V, Parker L, Goldberg B, Wapner R. Three-dimensional multiplanar transvaginal ultrasound of the cervix in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 351–358
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Severi F M, Bocchi C, Florio P, Picciolini E, D'Aniello G, Petraglia F. Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound in the assessment of the cervix to predict preterm delivery. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29: 1261–1265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Towner D, Boe N, Lou K, Gilbert W M. Cervical length measurements in pregnancy are longer when measured with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 16: 167–170
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoesli I M, Surbek D V, Tercanli S, Holzgreve W. Three dimensional volume measurement of the cervix during pregnancy compared to conventional 2D-sonography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 64: 115–119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozenberg P, Rafii A, Senat M V, Dujardin A, Rapon J, Ville Y. Predictive value of two-dimensional and three-dimensional multiplanar ultrasound evaluation of the cervix in preterm labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 237–241
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strauss A, Heer I, Fuchshuber S, Janssen U, Hillemanns P, Hepp H. Sonographic cervical volumetry in higher order multiple gestation. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16: 346–353
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rovas L, Sladkevicius P, Strobel E, Valentin L. Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound assessment of the cervix for the prediction of successful induction of labor with prostaglandin in prolonged pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 933–939
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rovas L, Sladkevicius P, Strobel E, Valentin L. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of three-dimensional gray-scale and power Doppler ultrasound examinations of the cervix in pregnant women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 132–137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar