In vivo assessment of the biomechanical properties of the uterine cervix in pregnancy

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 33-41

  Mazza, Edoardo ^a   Parra Saavedra, Miguel ^b,c   Bajka, Michael ^d   Gratacos, Eduard ^b   Nicolaides, Kypros ^e   Deprest, Jan ^f  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c CEDIFETAL   (Colombia)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^e KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASPIRATION; BIOMECHANICS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; ELASTOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RIGIDITY; UTERINE CERVIX;

BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CERVIX UTERI; ELASTICITY; ELASTICITY IMAGING TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; LABOR, INDUCED; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PREMATURE BIRTH; SUCTION;

EID: 84891538603     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4260     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Hassan SS, Romero R, Vidyadhari D, et al. Vaginal progesterone reduces the rate of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix: a multicenter randomized double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:18-31.
2. Celik E, To MS, Gajewska K, et al. Cervical length and obstetric history predict spontaneous preterm birth: development and validation of a model to provide individualized risk assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:549-54.
3. To MS, Skentou, CA, Royston P, Yu, CKH. Prediction of patient-specific risk of early preterm delivery using maternal history and sonographic measurement of cervical length: a population-based prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:362-7.
4. Beta J, Akolekar R, Ventura W, et al. Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery from maternal factors, obstetric history and placental perfusion and function at 11-13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:75-83.
5. Souka AP, Papastefanou I, Michalitsi V, et al. A predictive model of short cervix at 20 and 24 weeks using first-trimester cervical length measurement and maternal history. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:202-6.
6. Greco EL, Lange A, Ushakow F, et al. Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery from endocervical length at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:84-9.
7. Defranco EA, Lewis DF, Odibo AO. Improving the screening accuracy for preterm labor: is the combination of fetal fibronectin and cervical length in symptomatic patients a useful predictor of preterm birth? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecology 2013;208:233.e1-6.
8. Word RA, Li XH, Hnat M, Carrick K. Dynamics of cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: mechanisms and current concepts. Semin Reprod Med 2007;25:69-79.
9. Read C, Word R, Ruscheinsky M, et al. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: molecular characterization of the softening phase in mice. J Reprod Fertil 2007;134:327-40.
10. Vargis, E, Brown, N, Williams, K, et al. Detecting biochemical changes in the rodent cervix during pregnancy using Raman spectroscopy. Ann Biomed Eng 2012;40:1814-24.
11. Timmons B, Akins M, Mahendroo M. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2010;21:353-61.
12. Breeveld-Dwarkasing V, de Boer-Brouwer M, Koppele J, et al. Regional differences in water content, collagen content, and collagen degradation in the cervix of nonpregnant cows. Biol Reprod 2003;69:1600-7.
13. Aughey E, Calder A, Coutts J, et al. Pregnancy- associated changes in the physical and microscopic characteristics of the ovine cervix. J Anat 1993;136:389-99.
14. Myers K, Socrate S, Tzeranis D, House M. Changes in the biochemical constituents and morphologic appearance of the human cervical stroma during pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144:82-9.
15. Winkler M, Rath W. Changes in the cervical extracellular matrix during pregnancy and parturition.J Perinat Med 1999;27:45-61.
16. Petersen L, Uldbjerg N. Cervical collagen in non-pregnant women with previous cervical incompetence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996;67:41-5.
17. Buckingham J, Selden R, Danforth D. Connective tissue changes in the cervix during pregnancy and labor. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1962;97:733-41.
18. Uldbjerg N, Ekman G, Malmström A, et al. Ripening of the human uterine cervix related to changes in collagen, glycosaminoglycans and collagenolytic activity. Am J of Obstet Gynecol 1983;147:662-6.
19. Feltovich F, Nam K, Hall T. Quantitative ultrasound assessment of cervical microstructure. Ultrason Imaging 2010;32:131-42.
20. Timmons B, Akins M, Mahendroo M. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2010;21(6):353-61. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2010.01.011.
21. Parra-Saavedra M, Gomez L, Barrero A, et al. Prediction of preterm birth using the cervical consistency index. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:44-51.
22. Badir S, Mazza E, Bajka M. Cervical softening occurs early in pregnancy: characterization of cervical stiffness in 100 healthy women using the aspiration technique. Prenat Diagn 2013. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4116, online
23. Feltovich H, Hall T, Berghella V. Beyond cervical length: emerging technologies for assessing the pregnant cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:1-10.
24. Reusch LM, Anderson JJ, Carlson LC, et al. Detecting cervical microstructure via ultrasound and optical microscopy. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, San Diego, CA, Oct. 11-14, 2011.
25. Vargis E, Webb CN, Paria BC, et al. Detecting changes during pregnancy with Raman spectroscopy. Proceedings of the 2011 Biomedical Sciences and Engineering Conference: Image Informatics and Analytics in Biomedicine, Knoxville, TN, March 15-17, 2011.
26. Reusch LM, Nam K, Anderson JJ, Feltovich H, Kliewer MA, Harter JM, Hall TJ. Quantitative ultrasound for evaluating human cervical microstructure, Proceedings of Ultrasonics, IEEE Symposium - IUS, pp. 2252-5, 2009. DOI.: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2009.5441812.
27. Ophir J, Céspedes I, Ponnekanti H, et al. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 1991;13(2):111-34.
28. J Bamber, D Cosgrove, CF Dietrich, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: basic principles and technology. Ultraschall in Med 2013;34:169-84.
29. Treece G, Lindop J, Chen L, et al. Real-time quasi-static ultrasound elastography, Interface Focus 2011, 1, doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2011.0011
30. Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: clinical applications, Ultraschall in Med., 2013, online
31. Thomas A Imaging of the cervix using sonoelastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:356-7.
32. Yamaguchi S, Kamel Y, Kozuma S, Taketani Y. Tissue elastography imaging of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Med Ultrason 2007;34(4):209-10.
33. Swiatkowska-Freund M, Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:52-6.
34. Molina FS, Gómez LF, Florido J, et al. Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:685-9.
35. Khalil MR, Thorsen P, Uldbjerg N. Cervical ultrasound elastography may hold potential to predict risk of preterm birth. Dan Med J 2013;60(1):A4570.
36. Hernandez-Andrade E, Hassan S, Ahn H, et al. Evaluation of cervical stiffness during pregnancy using semiquantitative ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:152-61.
37. Molina FS, Rus G, Gomez LF, et al. Reply. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:612-3.
38. Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R. Reliability of cervix elastography in late first and second trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:1-7.
39. Fruscalzo A, Steinhard J, Londero AP, et al. Reliability of quantitative elastography of the uterine cervix in at-term pregnancies. J Perinat Med 2013. DOI 10.1515/jpm-2012-0180aop
40. Fruscalzo A, Schmitz R. Quantitative cervical elastography in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;40:612-3.
41. Mazza, E, Nava, A, Hahnloser D, et al. The mechanical response of human liver and its relation to histology: an in vivo study. Med Image Anal 2007;11:663-72.
42. Hollenstein M, Mazza E. Mechanical characterization of the human liver. In Computer Models in Biomechanics: From Nano to Macro, Holzapfel G, Kuhl E (eds). New York: Springer. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5464-5_26.
43. Mazza E, Nava A, Bauer M, et al. Mechanical properties of the human uterine cervix: an in vivo study. Med Image Anal 2006;10:125-36.
44. Bauer M, Mazza E, Jabareen M, et al. Assessment of the in vivo biomechanical properties of the human uterine cervix in pregnancy using the aspiration test. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144:77-81.
45. Badir S, Bajka M, Mazza E. A novel procedure for the mechanical characterization of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;27:143-53.
46. Myers K, Paskaleva A, House M, Socrate S. Mechanical and biochemical properties of human cervical tissue. Acta Biomater 2008;4:104-16.
47. McFarlin BL, Bigelow TA, Laybed Y, et al. Ultrasonic attenuation estimation of the pregnant cervix: a preliminary report. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;36:218-25.
48. Kuwata, T, Matsubara, S, Taniguchi, N, et al. A novel method for evaluating uterine cervical consistency using vaginal ultrasound gray-level histogram. J Perinat Med 2010;38(5):451-567.
49. Tekesin I, Wallwiener D, Schmidt S. The value of quantitative ultrasound tissue characterization of the cervix and rapid fetal fibronectin in predicting preterm delivery. J Perinat Med 2005;33(5):383-91.
50. Stein W, Hellmeyer L, Schmidt S, Tekesin I. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of transvaginal cervical length measurements and quantitative ultrasound tissue characterization of the cervix in the second and third trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med 2011;32:169-74.
51. Maul H, Mackay L, Garfield R. Cervical ripening: biochemical, molecular, and clinical considerations. Clin Obstet & Gynecol 2006;49:70-6.
52. Schlembach D, MacKay L, Shi L, et al. Cervical ripening and insufficiency: from biochemical and molecular studies to in vivo clinical examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;144S:S70-6.
53. O'Connell MP, Tidy J, Wisher SJ, et al. An in vivo comparative study of the pregnant and nonpregnant cervix using electrical impedance measurements. BJOG 2000;107(8):1040.
54. O'Connell MP, Avis NJ, Brown BH, et al. Electrical impedance measurements: an objective measure of prelabor cervical change. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003;14(6):389-91.
55. Gandhi S, Walker D, Milnes P, et al. Electrical impedance spectroscopy of the cervix in non-pregnant and pregnant women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;129:145-9.
56. Jokhi RP, Brown BH, Anumba DO. The role of cervical electrical impedance spectroscopy in the prediction of the course and outcome of induced labour. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009;9:40. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-40.
57. Hornung R, Spichitg S, Banos A, et al. Frequency-domain near-infrared spectroscopy of the uterine cervix during regular pregnancies. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26:205-12.
58. Thomas A, Kummel S, Gemeinhardt O, Fischer T. Real-time sonoelastography of the cervix: tissue elasticity of the normal and abnormal cervix. Acad Radiol 2007;14:193-200.
59. Feltovich H, Hall T. Quantitative imaging of the cervix: setting the bar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;14:121-8.