Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2005 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix at 15-32 weeks of gestation: A blinded comparison

Pages
10–13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Transperineal ultrasonography may be a preferred method of cervical length assessment for situations in which vaginal instrumentation is liked to be avoided.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the correlation and agreement between transperineal ultrasonography and transvaginal ultrasonography in the assessment of cervical length in gravid patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Unselected gravid women at 15-32 weeks of gestation who attended for routine antenatal care were sequentially examined by 2 sonographers using an endovaginal and a curvilinear probe.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Transperineal ultrasonography may be a preferred method of cervical length assessment for situations in which vaginal instrumentation is liked to be avoided.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ultrasonografi · Serviks uteri · İleriye dönük çalışma

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the correlation and agreement between transperineal ultrasonography and transvaginal ultrasonography in the assessment of cervical length in gravid patients. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective, blinded comparison of transvaginal and transperineal cervical ultrasonographic assessment. Unselected gravid women at 15-32 weeks of gestation who attended for routine antenatal care were sequentially examined by 2 sonographers using an endovaginal and a curvilinear probe. For each patient the initial sonographer and examination method were randomly assigned. The sonographer who performed the second examination was blinded to the results and images from the first examination. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the relation between the transvaginal and transperineal cervical length measurements and Student's t test was used to determine the statistical significance of the differences between the mean cervical length measurements. RESULTS: 100 women were studied at a mean of 23.9±4.7 weeks of gestation. Transperineal and transvaginal mean cervical lengths were 34.3±5.77 mm., 37.29±6 mm.; respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.75. In 55% of cases the intermethod difference was < 10%. The mean difference between the paired transvaginal and transperineal cervical lengths was 2.9±4.16 mm. and the difference was calculated to be statistically significant (p=0.00067). CONCLUSION: Cervical length measured by transperineal ultrasonography demonstrates close correlation with transvaginal measurements. With optimal technique, transperineal cervical length observations can be expected to be approximately 3mm. shorter than a given paired transvaginal measurement. Transperineal ultrasonography may be a preferred method of cervical length assessment for situations in which vaginal instrumentation is liked to be avoided.

🔖

Cite This Article

APİ, O., ÜNAL, O., ALTUNDAĞ, M., APİ, M., CENGİZOĞLU, B., TURAN, C. (2005). Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix at 15-32 weeks of gestation: A blinded comparison. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 10–13. https://ajindex.com/articles/227577

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Venturia SJ, Martin JA, Qurtin SC, et al. Births: Final data for 1997. National Vital Statistics Report (pamphlet). Hyattsville,MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 1999; 47:4-29
  2. Zador I, Neuman MR, Wolfson RN. Continous monitoring of the cervical dilatation during labor by ultrasound transit time measurement. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1976; 14:229
  3. Zemlyn S. The length of the uterine cervix and its significance. J Clin Ultrasound. 1981; 9:267-9
  4. Anderson HF. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 1991; 19:77-83
  5. Lewin D,Sadoul G, Sylvain-Leroy BS. L'echotomogtaphie perineale: Une Novelle Methode de mesure objective du col. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. (Paris). 1976; 5:651
  6. Jeanty P, d'Alton M, Romero R, et al. Perineal scanning. Am J. Perinatol. 1986; 3:289
  7. Mahony BS, Nyberg DA, Luthy Da, et al. Translabial ultrasound of the third-trimester uterine cervix. J Ultrasound Med. 1990; 9:717
  8. Onderoglu' LS. Digital examination and transperineal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length to assess risk of preterm delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997; 59:223-8
  9. Laing FC. Ultrasound Evaluation of Obstetric Problems Relating to the Lower Uterine Segment and Cervix. In: Fleischer AC, Mannig FA, Jeanty P, Romero R., eds. Sonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5th Ed;, Appleton and Lange, 1997:709-27
  10. Colombo DF, lams JD. Cervical Length and Preterm Labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 43:735-45
  11. Kurtzman JT, Goldsmith LJ, Gall S A, Spinnato JA. Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: a blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179:852-7
  12. Heath VC, Southall TR, Souka AP, Novakov A, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: relation to demographic characteristics and previous obstetric history. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12:304-11
  13. Hertzberg BS, Livingston E, DeLong DM, McNally PJ, Fazekas CK, Kliewer MA. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix: transperineal versus endovaginal imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2001; 20:1071-8
  14. Owen J, Neely C, Northen A. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the mid-trimester: a blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:780
  15. Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, To MS, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 22-24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ult