Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix at each trimester in normal pregnant women

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 191-194

  Ozdemir, Ismail ^a,b   Demirci, Fuat ^a   Yucel, Oguz ^a  

^a ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b Yogun Bak m Section   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Cervical length; Transperineal; Transvaginal; Ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GESTATION PERIOD; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NORMAL HUMAN; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; THIRD TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX;

CERVIX UTERI; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; PERINEUM; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTERS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; VAGINA;

EID: 20544464854     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00378.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Mahony BS. Ultrasound of the cervix during pregnancy. Abdominal Imaging 1997; 22: 569-578.
2. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R et al. Ultrasonographic 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.
3. Onderoglu L. Digital examination and transperineal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length to assess risk of preterm delivery. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet 1997; 59: 223-228.
4. Kurtzman JT, Goldsmith LJ, Gall SA, Spinnato JA. Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: a blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am. J. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 179: 852-857.
5. Carr DB, Smith K, Parsons L, Chansky K, Shields LE. Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96: 554-558.
6. 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: 1071-1078.
7. Owen J, Neely C, Northern A. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: a blinded comparison. Am. J. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181: 780-783.
8. Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, To MS, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 22-24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 17: 335-340.
9. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl. J. Med. 1996; 334: 567-572.
10. Anderson HF. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J. Clin. Ultrasound 1991; 19: 77-83.
11. Hertzberg BS, Kliewer MA, Baumeister LA, McNally PB, Fazekas CK. Optimizing transperineal sonographic imaging of the cervix: the hip elevation technique. J. Ultrasound Med. 1994; 13: 1009-1010.
12. Hertzberg BS, Bowie JD, Weber TM, Carroll BA, Kliewer MA, Jordan SG. Sonography of the cervix during the third trimester of pregnancy: value of the transperineal approach. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1991; 157: 73-76.