Can transvaginal cervical length and cervical strain elastography predict mid-trimester medical induction to abortion intervals?

References

• The world Health Organization. Medical methods for termination of pregnancy. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1997;871:i–vii, 1–110.
   Google Scholar
• Akins ML, Luby-Phelps K, Bank RA, et al. Cervical softening during pregnancy: regulated changes in collagen cross-linking and composition of matricellular proteins in the mouse. Biol Reprod. 2011;84(5):1053–1062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, et al. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(6):623–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(9):567–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gesthuysen A, Hammer K, Mollers M, et al. Evaluation of cervical elastography strain pattern to predict preterm birth. Ultraschall Med. 2020;41(4):397–403.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):52–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruscalzo A, Londero AP, Frohlich C, et al. Quantitative elastography of the cervix for predicting labor induction success. Ultraschall Med. 2015;36(1):65–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina F, Gómez L, Florido J, et al. Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(6):685–689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez-Andrade E, Hassan SS, Ahn H, et al. Evaluation of cervical stiffness during pregnancy using semiquantitative ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41(2):152–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon LJ, Diaz-Garcia C, Bernard JP, et al. Reference range for cervical length throughout pregnancy: non-parametric LMS-based model applied to a large sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(4):459–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abortion care guideline. World Health Organization. 2022. [cited 2022 Nov 10]. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/349316
   Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Wang Y, Du X, et al. Clinical application of low-dose misoprostol in the induced labor of 16 to 28 weeks pathological pregnancies (a STROBE-compliant article). Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; Oct98(40):e17396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydın E, Ozyuncu O. Low-dose misoprostol for second trimester pregnancy termination in women with a prior caesarean delivery. JCDR. 2019;13(11):QC05–QC07.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, et al. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(5):538–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, et al. Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;17(5):315–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, et al. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):261–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rane SM, Pandis GK, Guirgis RR, et al. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22(1):40–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware V, Raynor D. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(5):1030–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, et al. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(3):254–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoeven CJ, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, et al. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(5):500–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll SG, Blott M, Nicolaides KH. Preterm prelabor amniorrhexis: outcome of live births. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(1):18–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernandez-Andrade E, Romero R, Korzeniewski SJ, et al. Cervical strain determined by ultrasound elastography and its association with spontaneous preterm delivery. J. Perinat. Med. 2014;42(2):159–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang HS, Sohn IS, Kwon HS. Imaging analysis of cervical elastography for prediction of successful induction of labor at term. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(6):937–946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Londero AP, Schmitz R, Bertozzi S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of cervical elastography in predicting labor induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Perinat. Med. 2016;44(2):167–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira S, Frick AP, Poon LC, et al. Successful induction of labor: prediction by preinduction cervical length, angle of progression and cervical elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(4):468–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnier L, Bouhanna P, Arnou C, et al. Elastography of cervix to predict delay from induction to delivery. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014;42(12):827–831.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fuchs T, Woytoń R, Pomorski M, et al. Sonoelastography of the uterine cervix as a new diagnostic tool of cervical assessment in pregnant women—preliminary report. Ginekol Pol. 2013;84(1):12–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R, Klockenbusch W, et al. Reliability of cervix elastography in the late first and second trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(7):E101–E107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fruscalzo A, Mazza E, Feltovich H, et al. Cervical elastography during pregnancy: a critical review of current approaches with a focus on controversies and limitations. J Med Ultrason (2001). 2016;43(4):493–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oturina V, Hammer K, Möllers M, et al. Assessment of cervical elastography strain pattern and its association with preterm birth. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(8):925–932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park HS, Kwon H, Kwak DW, et al. Addition of cervical elastography may ıncrease preterm delivery prediction performance in pregnant women with short cervix: a prospective study. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34(9):e68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar