Prediction of Preterm Birth: Nonsonographic Cervical Methods

Seminars in Perinatology

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 312-316

  Ross, Michael G ^a,b   Beall, Marie H ^a,b  

^a HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

cervical measurements; cervilenz; short cervix

Indexed keywords

PROGESTERONE;

CERVICAL LENGTH MEASUREMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OBSTETRIC CARE; PREDICTION; PREMATURE LABOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY; TRANSVAGINAL ECHOGRAPHY; UTERINE CERVIX CERCLAGE; UTERINE CERVIX INCOMPETENCE;

CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; PREMATURE BIRTH; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 70349408078     PISSN: 01460005     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2009.06.004     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Owen J., Yost N., Berghella V., et al. Mid-trimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. J Am Med Assoc 286 (2001) 1340-1348
2. Spong C.Y. Prediction and prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 110 (2007) 405-415
3. Berghella V. Novel developments on cervical length screening and progesterone for preventing preterm birth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 116 (2009) 182-187
4. Iams J.D., Goldenberg R.L., Meis P.J., et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med 334 (1996) 567-572
5. Holcomb Jr. W.L., and Smeltzer J.S. Cervical effacement: variation in belief among clinicians. Obstet Gynecol 78 (1991) 43-45
6. Goldberg J., Newman R.B., and Rust P.F. Interobserver reliability of digital and endovaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177 (1997) 853-858
7. Richey S.D., Ramin K.D., Roberts S.W., et al. The correlation between transperineal sonography and digital examination in the evaluation of the third-trimester cervix. Obstet Gynecol 85 (1995) 745-748
8. Sonek J.D., Iams J.D., Blumenfeld M., et al. Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol 76 (1990) 172-175
9. Mahony B.S., Nyberg D.A., Luthy D.A., et al. Translabial ultrasound of the third-trimester uterine cervix. Correlation with digital examination. J Ultrasound Med 9 (1990) 717-723
10. Jackson G.M., Ludmir J., and Bader T.J. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 79 (1992) 214-218
11. Chandra S., Crane J.M., Hutchens D., et al. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 98 (2001) 2-6
12. Reis F.M., Gervasi M.T., Florio P., et al. Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189 (2003) 1361-1367
13. Rozenberg P., Chevret S., Chastang C., et al. Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low bishop score. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 112 (2005) 192-196
14. Daskalakis G., Thomakos N., Hatziioannou L., et al. Sonographic cervical length measurement before labor induction in term nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther 21 (2006) 34-38
15. Gomez Laencina A.M., Sanchez F.G., Gimenez J.H., et al. Comparison of ultrasonographic cervical length and the bishop score in predicting successful labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86 (2007) 799-804
16. Elghorori M.R., Hassan I., Dartey W., et al. Comparison between subjective and objective assessments of the cervix before induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 26 (2006) 521-526
17. Uyar Y., Erbay G., Demir B.C., et al. Comparison of the bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor inductionn. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280 (2009) 357-362
18. Tan P.C., Vallikkannu N., Suguna S., et al. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29 (2007) 568-573
19. Tanir H.M., Sener T., and Yildiz Z. Digital and transvaginal ultrasound cervical assessment for prediction of successful labor induction. Int J Gynecol Obstet 100 (2008) 52-55
20. Matijevic R., Grgic O., and Vasilj O. Is sonographic assessment of cervical length better than digital examination in screening for preterm delivery in a low-risk population?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85 (2006) 1342-1347
21. Zlatnik F.J., Yankowitz J., Whitham J., et al. Vaginal ultrasound as an adjunct to cervical digital examination in women at risk of early delivery. Gynecol Obstet Invest 51 (2001) 12-16
22. McMahon K.S., Neerhof M.G., Haney E.I., et al. Prematurity in multiple gestations: identification of patients who are at low risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186 (2002) 1137-1141
23. Vayssiere C., Favre R., Audibert F., et al. Cervical assessment at 22 and 27 weeks for the prediction of spontaneous birth before 34 weeks in twin pregnancies: is transvaginal sonography more accurate than digital examination?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26 (2005) 707-712
24. Alfirevic Z., len-Coward H., Molina F., et al. Targeted therapy for threatened preterm labor based on sonographic measurement of the cervical length: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29 (2007) 47-50
25. Onderoglu L.S. Digital examination and transperineal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length to assess risk of preterm delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 59 (1997) 223-228
26. 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 171 (1994) 956-964
27. Volumenie J.L., Luton D., De Spirlet M., et al. Ultrasonographic cervical length measurement is not a better predictor of preterm delivery than digital examination in a population of patients with idiopathic preterm labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 117 (2004) 33-37
28. Ross M.G., Cousins L., Baxter-Jones R., et al. Objective cervical portio length measurements: consistency and efficacy of screening for a short cervix. J Reprod Med 52 (2007) 385-389
29. Burwick R.M., Lee G.T., Benedict J.L., et al. Blinded comparison of cervical portio length measurements by digital examination vs Cervilenz. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200 (2009) e37-e39
30. Berghella V., Owen J., MacPherson C., et al. Natural history of cervical funneling in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 109 (2007) 863-869
31. To M.S., Skentou C., Liao A.W., et al. Cervical length and funneling at 23 weeks of gestation in the prediction of spontaneous early preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18 (2001) 200-203
32. Ghi T., Contro E., Martina T., et al. Cervical length and risk of antepartum bleeding in women with complete placenta previa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33 (2009) 209-212
33. Smith G.C., Celik E., To M., et al. Cervical length at mid-pregnancy and the risk of primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 358 (2008) 1346-1353
34. ACOG Committee. Opinion 419, 2008 (replaces no. 29 November 1, 2003). Use of progesterone to reduce preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 112 (2008) 963-965