Sonographic assessment of cervical changes during pregnancy and delivery: Current concepts

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 149-155

  Maymon, R ^a   Shulman, A ^b   Ariely, S ^a   Halperin, R ^a   Caspi, E ^b   Weinraub, Z ^a  

^a ASSAF HAROFEH MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Cervix; Incompetent cervix; Pregnancy; Premature contraction; Sonography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; PREMATURE LABOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX DILATATION; UTERINE CERVIX INCOMPETENCE;

EID: 0030218992     PISSN: 03012115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0301-2115(96)02458-X     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. [1] Collaborative Group on Preterm Birth Prevention. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of a preterm birth prevention program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 352-366.
2. [2] Buekens P, Alexander S, Bousten M, Blondel B, Kaminski M, Reid M, and the European Community Collaborative Study Group on Prenatal Screening. Randomized, controlled trial of routine cervical examinations in pregnancy. Lancet 1994; 344: 841-844.
3. [3] Iams JD, Peaceman AM, Creasy RK. Prevention of prematurity. Semin Perinatal 1988; 12(4): 280-291.
4. [4] Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268.
5. [5] Bouyer J, Papiernik E, Dreyfus J, Collins D, Wninisdoerffer B, Gueguen S. Maturation signs of the cervix and prediction of preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 209-214.
6. [6] Michaels WH, Montgomery C, Karo J, Temple J, Ager J, Olson J. Ultrasound differentiation of the competent from the incompetent cervix: prevention of premature delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 537-546.
7. [7] Mitchel MD, Flint APF, Biddy J, et al. Rapid increase in plasma prostaglandin concentrations after vaginal examinations and amniotomy. Br Med J 1977; 2: 1183-1185.
8. [8] Lenihan JP. Relationship of antepartum pelvic examinations to premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 63: 33-37.
9. [9] Bowes WA Jr. Editorial. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1995; 50(3): 170-172.
10. [10] Sarti DA, Sample WF, Hobel CJ, Staisch KJ. Ultrasonic visualization of a dilated cervix during pregnancy. Radiology 1979; 130: 417-420.
11. [11] Andersen HF. Ultrasonography in labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 35(3): 527-534.
12. [12] Treacy B, Smith C, Rayburn W. Ultrasound in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1990; 45(5): 213-219.
13. [13] Callen PW. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1988; 387.
14. [14] Harris RD, Barth RA. Sonography of the gravid uterus and placenta: current concepts. AJR 1993; 160: 455-465.
15. [15] Bowie JD, Andreotti RF, Rosenberg ER. Sonographic appearance of the uteri cervix in pregnancy: the vertical cervix. AJR 1983; 140: 737-740.
16. [16] Andersen HF, Nugent CE, Wanty SD, Hayashi RH. Prediction of risk for preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 859-867.
17. [17] Kushnir O, Vigil DA, Izquierdo L, Schiff M, Curet LB. Vaginal ultrasonographic assessment of cervical length changes during normal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 991-993.
18. [18] Okitsu O, Mimura T, Nakayama T, Aono T. Early prediction of preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992; 2: 402-409.
19. [19] Murakawa H, Utumi T, Hasegawa I, Tanaka K, Fuzimori R. Evaluation of threatened preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 829-832.
20. [20] Sonek JD, Iams JD, Blumenfeld M, Johnson F, Landon M, Gabbe S. Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal Ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 172-175.
21. [21] Brown JE, Thieme GA, Shah DM, Flisher A, Boehm F. Transabdominal and transvaginal endosonography: evaluation of the cervix and lower uterine segment in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 721-726.
22. [22] O'Leary JA, Ferrell RE. Comparison of ultrasonographic and digital cervical evaluation. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 718-719.
23. [23] Andersen HF, Ansbacher R. Ultrasound: a new approach to the evaluation of cervical ripening. Semin Perinatal 1991; 15(2): 140-148.
24. [24] Ayers JWT, De Grood RM, Compton AA, Barclay M, Anasbacher R. Sonographic evaluation of cervical length in pregnancy: diagnosis and management of preterm cervical effacement in patients at risk for premature delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 939-944.
25. [25] Buckingham JC, Buethe RA jr, Danforth DN. Collagen-muscle ratio in clinically normal and clinically incompetent cervices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965; 91: 232-237.
26. [26] Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party on Cervical Cerclage. Interim report of the Medical Research Council/RCOG Multicentre randomized trial of cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 437-445.
27. [27] Bowes WA. Editorial. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1992; 47: 379-380.
28. [28] McGahan JP, Philips HE, Bowen MS. Prolapse of the amniotic sac ("hourglass membrane"). Radiology 1981; 140: 463-466.
29. [29] Podobnik M, Bulic M, Smiljanic N, Bistricki J. Ultrasonography in the detection of cervical incompetency. J Clin Ultrasound 1988; 16: 383-391.
30. [30] Brook I, Feingold M, Schwarte A, Zakut H. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of cervical incompetence in pregnancy: a new diagnostic approach. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981; 88: 640-643.
31. [31] Feingold M, Brook I, Zakut H. Detection of cervical incompetence by ultrasound. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1984; 63: 407-410.
32. [32] Mahran M. The role of ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of the incompetent cervix. In: Kurjak A, ed. Recent Advances in Ultrasound Diagnosis, 2, Excerpta Medica, 1980; 505.
33. [33] Nzeh DA, Adetoro OO. Sonographic assessment of the incompetent cervix in pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1992; 37: 179-184.
34. [34] Varma TR, Patel RH, Pillai U. Ultrasonic assessment of cervix in "at risk" patients. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1986; 65: 147-152.
35. [35] Rana J, Davis SE, Harrigan JT. Improving the outcome of cervical cerclage by sonographic follow-up. J Ultrasound Med 1990; 9: 275-278.
36. [36] Confino E, Mayden KL, Giglin RW, Vermesh M, Gleicher N. Pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the incompetent uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1986; 65: 593-597.
37. [37] Karis JP, Hertzberg BS, Bowie JD. Sonographic diagnosis of premature cervical dilatation: Potential pitfall due to lower uterine segment contraction. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10:83-87.
38. [38] Parulekar SG, Kiwi R. Dynamic incompetent cervix uteri. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7: 481-485.
39. [39] Gusman ER, Rosenberg JC, Houlihan C, et al. A new method using vaginal ultrasound to evaluate the asymptomatic incompetent cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83: 248-252.
40. [40] Bartolucci L, Hill WC, Katz M, Gill PJ, Kitzmiller JL. Ultrasonography in preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149: 52-56.
41. [41] Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, et al. Ultrasonograhic 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: 956-964.
42. [42] Riley L, Frigolleto FD, Benacerraf BR. The implications of sonographically identified cervical changes in patients not necessarily at risk for preterm birth. J Ultrasound Med 1992; 11: 75-79.
43. [43] Bowes WA Jr. Editorial. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1993; 48(8): 520-521.
44. [44] Mclean M, Walters WA, Smith R. Prediction and early diagnosis of preterm labor: a critical review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1993; 48(4): 209-225.
45. [45] Gusman ER, Houlihan C, Vintzileas A. Sonography and transfundal pressure in the evaluation of the cervix during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1995; 50(5): 395-403.
46. [46] Bowes WA Jr. Editorial. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1995; 50(1): 18-19.