Sonographic diagnosis of cervical incompetence for prevention and management

References

• Guzman ER, 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
• Romero R, Gonzales R, Sepulveda W, et al. Infection and labor. VIII. Microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity in patients with suspected cervical incompe- tence: prevalence and clinical significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1086–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero R, Mazor M, Munoz H, et al. The preterm labor syndrome. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1994;734:414–29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggert-Kruse W, Botz I, Pohl S, et al. Antimicrobial activity of human cervical mucus. Hum Reprod 2000;15:778–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwahn H, Dubrausky W. The structure of the musculature of the human uterus muscles and connective tissue. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966;94:391–404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uldbjerg N, Ekman G, Malstrom A. Ripening of the human uterine cervix related to changes in collagen, glycosaminoglycans and collagenolytic activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;147:662–6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osmers R, Blaser J, Kuhn W, Tschesche H. Interleukin-8 synthesis and the onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:223–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGregor JA, Jackson GM, Lachelin GCL, et al. Salivary estriol as risk assessment for preterm labor: a prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:1337–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stys S, Clewell W, Meschia G. Changes in cervical compliance at parturation independent of uterine activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;130:414–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gream GT. Dilatation or division of the cervix uteri. Lancet 1865;1:381
   Google Scholar
• Wood C, Bannerman R, Booth R, Pinkerton J. The pre- diction of premature labor by observation of the cervix and external tocography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965;91:396–402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papiernik E, Bouyer J, Collin D. Precocious cervical ripening and preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:238–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buekens P, Alexander S, Boutsen M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of routine cervical examinations in pregnancy. European Community Collaborative Study Group on Prenatal Screening. Lancet 1994;344:841–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, et al. Ultrasono- graphic examination of the uterine cervix is better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:956–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To MS, Skentou C, Cicero S, Nicolaides KH. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-weeks scan: problems with transabdominal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:292–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson JN, Economy KE, Feinberg BR, et al. Cervi- cal hydrosonography in pregnancy to assess cervical length by transabdominal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:1023–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen J, Neely C, Northen A. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: a blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:780–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, et al. Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal–translabial ultrasonography. Ultra- sound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:335–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duijkers IJ, Klipping C. Ultrasonographic assessment of endocervix and cervical mucus in ovulatory menstrual cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;93:13–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts H, van Eyck J. Antenatal diagnosis of vasa previa by transvaginal color Doppler sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993;3:276–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalev J, Meizner I, Orvieto R, et al. Evaluation of the upper cervix by the location of the vesicocervical fold of the urinary bladder to rule out cervical shortening during pregnancy with and without premature con- tractions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:401–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook CM, Ellwood DA. The cervix as a predictor of preterm delivery in ‘at-risk’ women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:109–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To MS, Skentou C, Chan C, et al. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-week scan: standardizing tech- niques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:217–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman K, et al. Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:723–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yost NP, Bloom SL, Twickler DM, et al. Pitfalls in ultra- sonic cervical length measurement for predicting preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:510–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arabin B, Aardenburg R, van Eyck J. Maternal posi- tion and ultrasonic cervical assessment in multiple pregnancy. Preliminary observations. J Reprod Med 1997;42:719–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong G, Levine D, Ludmir J. Maternal postural chal- lenge as a functional test for cervical incompetence. J Ultrasound Med 1997;16:169–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman ER, Rosenberg JC, Houlihan C, et al. A new method using vaginal ultrasound and transfundal pressure to evaluate the asymptomatic incompetent cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:248–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherif LS, Shalan HM. Detection of pregnant women at risk of cervical incompetence by transvaginal sonography during straining. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997;23:353–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bega G, Lev-Toaff A, Kuhlman K, et al. Three- dimensional multiplanar transvaginal ultrasound of the cervix in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:351–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath VC, Southall TR, Souka AP, et al. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of sponta- neous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:312–17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath VC, Southall TR, Souka AP, et al. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: relation to demo- graphic characteristics and previous obstetric history. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:304–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen HF, Nugent CE, Wanty SD, et al. Prediction of risk for preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:859–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iams JD, Paraskos J, Landon MB, et al. Cervical sono- graphy in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:50–6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbard JU, Tart M, Moawad AH. Cervical length at 16–22 weeks’ gestation and risk for preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:972–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan SS, Romero R, Berry SM, et al. Patients with an ultrasonographic cervical length < or = 15 mm have nearly a 50% risk of early spontaneous preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1458–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timor-Tritsch IE, Boozarjomehri F, Masakowski Y, et al. Can a “snapshot”“ sagittal view of the cervix by transvaginal ultrasonography predict active preterm labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:990–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Andrews WW, Copper R, Hauth JC, et al. Second- trimester cervical ultrasound: associations with increased risk for recurrent early spontaneous delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:222–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman ER, Mellon R, Vintzileos AM, et al. Relation- ship between endocervical canal length between 15–24 weeks gestation and obstetric history. J Matern Fetal Med 1998;7:269–72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guzman ER, Mellon C, Vintzileos AM, et al. Longitu- dinal assessment of endocervical canal length between 15 and 24 weeks’ gestation in women at risk for pregnancy loss or preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:31–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath VC, Souka AP, Erasmus I, et al. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: the value of Shirodkar suture for the short cervix. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12:318–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan S, Romero R, Maymon E, et al. Does cervical cerclage prevent preterm delivery in patients with a short cervix? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1325–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iams JD. Prevention of preterm Birth. N Engl J Med 1998;338:54–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papiernik E, Bouyer J, Collin D. Prevention of preterm births: a perinatal study in Haguenau, France. Pediat- rics 1985;76:154–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lash AF, Lash SR. Habitual abortion: the incompetent internal os of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1950;59:68–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable mis- carriage. J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp 1957;64:346–50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shirodkar JN. A new method of operation for habitual abortions in second trimester of pregnancy. Antiseptic 1955;52:290–300
   Google Scholar
• Benson RC, Durfee RB. Transabdominal cervico- uterine cerclage during pregnancy for the treatment of cervical incompetence during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1965;25:145–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaughton MC, Chalmers IG, Dubowitz V, et al. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Multi- centre Randomised Trial of Cervical Cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:516–23
   Google Scholar
• Dijkstra K, Funai EF, O’Neill L, et al. Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:346–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzman ER, Forster JK, Vintzileos AM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women treated with elective versus ultrasound indicated cervical cerclage. Ultra- sound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:323–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newcomer J. Pessaries for the treatment of incompe- tent cervix and premature delivery. Obstet Gynecol Survey 2000;55:443–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo G, Capponi A, Angelini E, et al. The value of transvaginal ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix in predicting preterm delivery in patients with preterm premature rupture of mem- branes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;11:23–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar