Quantitative ultrasound assessment of the rat cervix

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1031-1040

  McFarlin, Barbara L ^a   O'Brien Jr , William D ^b   Oelze, Michael L ^b   Zachary, James F ^b   White Traut, Rosemary C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical attenuation; Cervical ripening; Collagen; Preterm birth; Quantitative ultrasound; Rat cervix

Indexed keywords

ATTENUATION; COLLAGEN; DISCRIMINATORS; SCANNING; SCATTERING;

CERVICAL ATTENUATION; CERVICAL RIPENING; PRETERM BIRTH; QUANTITATIVE ULTRASOUND; RAT CERVIX;

ULTRASONICS;

COLLAGEN; HYDROXYPROLINE; LITHIUM; NIOBIUM; WATER;

ACOUSTIC CONCENTRATION; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; NONHUMAN; PARAMETER; PREDICTION; PREMATURE LABOR; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RAT; RAT STRAIN; SCATTERER DIAMETER; SCATTERER STRENGTH FACTOR; ULTRASOUND SCANNER; ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER; UTERINE CERVIX RIPENING;

EID: 33746647427     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.8.1031     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2005; 54:1-116.
2. Lorenz JM. The outcome of extreme prematurity. Semin Perinatol 2001; 25:348-359.
3. St John EB, Nelson KG, Cliver SP, Bishnoi RR, Goldenberg RL. Cost of neonatal care according to gestational age at birth and survival status. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182:170-175.
4. Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Sutton PD. Preliminary births for 2004. In: Health E-Stats. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/prod ucts/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelim_bir ths/prelim_births04.htm.
5. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Public Health and Science, US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000.
6. Danforth DN. The fibrous nature of the human cervix and its relation to the isthmic segment in gravid and nongravid uteri. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1947; 53:541-557.
7. Chwalisz K, Garfield RE. Role of nitric oxide in the uterus and cervix: implications for the management of labor. J Perinat Med 1998; 26:448-457.
8. Mahendroo MS, Porter A, Russell DW, Word RA. The parturition defect in steroid 5alpha-reductase type 1 knockout mice is due to impaired cervical ripening. Mol Endocrinol 1999; 13:981-992.
9. Word RA, Landrum CP, Timmons BC, Young SG, Mahendroo MS. Transgene insertion on mouse chromosome 6 impairs function of the uterine cervix and causes failure of parturition. Biol Reprod 2005; 73:1046-1056.
10. Kremkau FW. Diagnostic Ultrasound: Principles and Instruments. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Co; 1998.
11. Shung KK, Thieme GA. Biologic tissues as ultrasonic scattering media. In: Shung KK, Thieme GA (eds). Ultrasonic Scattering in Biologic Tissues. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1993:53-74.
12. Oelze ML, Zachary JF, O'Brien WD Jr. Characterization of tissue microstructure using ultrasonic backscatter: theory and technique for optimization using a Gaussian form factor. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112:1202-1211.
13. Insana MF. Modeling acoustic backscatter from kidney microstructure using an anisotropic correlation function. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97:649-655.
14. Oelze ML, O'Brien WD Jr. Frequency-dependent attenuation-compensation functions for ultrasonic signals backscattered from random media. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111:2308-2319.
15. Insana MF, Brown DG. Acoustic scattering theory applied to soft biological tissues. In: Shung KK, Thieme GA (eds). Ultrasonic Scattering in Biologic Tissues. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1993:75-124.
16. Faran JJ. Sound scattering by solid cylinders and spheres. J Acoust Soc Am 1951; 23:405-418.
17. Insana MF, Hall TJ. Parametric ultrasound imaging from backscatter coefficient measurements: image formation and interpretation. Ultrason Imaging 1990; 12:245-267.
18. Lizzi FL, Astor M, Kalisz A, et al. Ultrasonic spectrum analysis for assays of different scatterer morphologies: theory and very-high frequency clinical results. Int J Imaging Syst Technol 1997; 8:3-10.
19. Lizzi FL, Ostromogilsky M, Feleppa EJ, Rorke MC, Yaremko MM. Relationship of ultrasonic spectral parameters to features of tissue microstructure. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 1986; 33:319-329.
20. Nassiri DK, Hill CR. The use of angular acoustic scattering measurements to estimate structural parameters of human and animal tissues. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79:2048-2054.
21. Nicholas D, Hill CR, Nassiri DK. Evaluation of backscattering coefficients for excised human tissues: principles and techniques. Ultrasound Med Biol 1982; 8:7-15.
22. Oelze ML, O'Brien WD Jr. Defining optimal axial and lateral resolution for estimating scatterer properties from volumes using ultrasound backscatter. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115:3226-3234.
23. Oelze ML, Zachary JF, O'Brien WD Jr. Parametric imaging of rat mammary tumors in vivo for the purposes of tissue characterization. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21:1201-1210.
24. Fields S, Dunn F. Correlation of echographic visualizability of tissue with biological composition and physiological state. J Acoust Soc Am 1973; 54:809-812.
25. Hall CS, Nguyen CT, Scott MJ, Lanza GM, Wickline SA. Delineation of the extracellular determinants of ultrasonic scattering from elastic arteries. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:613-620.
26. Pohlhammer J, O'Brien WD Jr. Dependence of the ultrasonic scatter coefficient on collagen concentration in mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc Am 1981; 69:283-285.
27. Hall CS, Scott MJ, Lanza GM, Miller JG, Wickline SA. The extracellular matrix is an important source of ultrasound backscatter from myocardium. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107:612-619.
28. Winkler M, Rath W. Changes in the cervical extracellular matrix during pregnancy and parturition. J Perinat Med 1999; 27:45-60.
29. Feltovich H, Ji H, Janowski JW, Delance NC, Moran CC, Chien EK. Effects of selective and nonselective PGE2 receptor agonists on cervical tensile strength and collagen organization and microstructure in the pregnant rat at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192:753-760.
30. Goilichkowski AM, King SR, Mascara K. Pregnancy related changes in rat cervix glycosaminogylcans. Biochem J 1980; 192:1-8.
31. Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38:267-279.
32. Leppert PC, Kokenysei R, Klemenich CA, Fisher J. Further evidence of a decorin-collagen interaction in the disruption of cervical collagen fibers during rat gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182:805-811.
33. Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P. Molecular Biology of the Cell. New York, NY: Garland Science; 2002.
34. Buhimschi IA, Dussably L, Buhimschi CS, Ahmed A, Weiner CP. Physical and biomechanical characteristics of rat cervical ripening are not consistent with increased collagenase activity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:1695-1704.
35. Toole BP. Hyaluronan in morphogenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2001; 12:79-87.
36. Obara M, Hirano H, Ogawa M, et al. Changes in molecular weight of hyaluronan and hyaluronidase activity in uterine cervical mucus in cervical ripening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80:492-496.
37. Uchiyama T, Matsumoto T, Suzuki Y, Ishida M, Obara T, Kanayama T. Endogenous hyaluronan: a cytokine-like factor present in rabbit uterine cervix during pregnancy. Biol Pharm Bull 2004; 27:1907-1912.
38. Kossoff G. Basic physics and imaging characteristics of ultrasound. World J Surg 2000; 24:134-142.
39. Horwitz W. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Gaithersburg, MD: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2002.
40. Pedhazur EJ. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction. London, England: Thomson Learning; 1997.
41. Njeh CF, Fuerst T, Diessel E, Genant HK. Is quantitative ultrasound dependent on bone structure? A reflection. Osteoporosis Int 2001; 12:1-15.