Transperineal versus transvaginal sonographic measurements of cervical length in pregnant women between 16 and 24 weeks of gestation

被引:5
作者
Songserm, Vilasinee [1 ]
Komwilaisak, Ratana [1 ]
Saksiriwuttho, Piyamas [1 ]
Kongwattanakul, Kiattisak [1 ]
机构
[1] Khon Kaen Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Fac Med, Khon Kaen, Thailand
关键词
cervical length; pregnancy; transperineal sonography; transvaginal sonography; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.1002/jcu.22640
中图分类号
O42 [声学];
学科分类号
070206 ; 082403 ;
摘要
Purpose To investigate the correlation between cervical length measurements using transvaginal and transperineal approaches at 16-24 weeks of gestation. Methods The prospective study recruited 110 singleton pregnant women. All the measurements were performed by one operator who was blinded to the results of both approaches. Cervical length was first measured by transvaginal sonography (TVUS) then transperineal sonography (TPUS). The transvaginal approach was used as the reference measurement. Patient preference regarding the sonographic approaches was evaluated using questionnaire. Results Cervical length was successfully measured by TVUS in all cases. TPUS was successful in 108/110 participants. There was high correlation between the results of TVUS and TPUS (Pearson's correlation coefficient was .94; 95% CI .9 to .95. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was .94; 95% CI .92-.96). The estimated difference in cervical length measured using TVUS and TPUS was .2 mm. The 95% tolerance interval for paired observation was -1.8 to 2.3 mm. The interobserver coefficient of TPUS measurement was .98 (95% CI .92-.99). TPUS was rated as resulting in mild or no discomfort and was preferred by most women. Conclusion TVUS and TPUS techniques showed high correlation in cervical length measurement with high interobserver reliability. More patients preferred TPUS. TPUS should be considered as an alternative method of cervical length measurement.
引用
收藏
页码:389 / 393
页数:5
相关论文
共 16 条
[2]   Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: Agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques [J].
Carr, DB ;
Smith, K ;
Parsons, L ;
Chansky, K ;
Shields, LE .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2000, 96 (04) :554-558
[3]   Cervical length at 22-24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography [J].
Cicero, S ;
Skentou, C ;
Souka, A ;
To, MS ;
Nicolaides, KH .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2001, 17 (04) :335-340
[4]  
Committee on Practice BulletinsObstetrics The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012, Obstet Gynecol, V120, P964
[5]   Transperineal ultrasonography for measuring cervical length during preterm labor [J].
Dimassi, Kaouther ;
Hammami, Aymen ;
Triki, Amel ;
Gara, Mohamed Faouzi .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2016, 133 (03) :375-376
[6]   Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasound cervical length measurement and preterm labor [J].
Gauthier, T. ;
Marin, B. ;
Garuchet-Bigot, A. ;
Kanoun, D. ;
Catalan, C. ;
Caly, H. ;
Eyraud, J. -L. ;
Aubard, Y. .
ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2014, 290 (03) :465-469
[7]   How to measure cervical length [J].
Kagan, K. O. ;
Sonek, J. .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2015, 45 (03) :358-362
[8]   Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: A blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation [J].
Kurtzman, JT ;
Goldsmith, LJ ;
Gall, SA ;
Spinnato, JA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1998, 179 (04) :852-857
[9]   The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention [J].
McIntosh, Jennifer ;
Feltovich, Helen ;
Berghella, Vincenzo ;
Manuck, Tracy .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 215 (03) :B2-B7
[10]   Transperineal versus transvaginal sonographic cervical length measurement in second- and third-trimester pregnancies [J].
Meijer-Hoogeveen, M. ;
Stoutenbeek, P. ;
Visser, G. H. A. .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 32 (05) :657-662