Citation Information :
Chaudhary S, Sharma S, Garg S. A Comparative Study of Transvaginal Cervical Length at 11–14 Weeks and at 18–22 Weeks of Gestation for the Outcome of Pregnancy. J Mahatma Gandhi Univ Med Sci Tech 2020; 5 (3):83-87.
Background: Spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) represents a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Transvaginal cervical shortening is a predictor of preterm birth. Prediction of preterm labor by measurement of cervical length through transvaginal sonography when coupled with appropriate preterm birth prevention strategies, has been associated with reductions in SPTB in asymptomatic singleton pregnant women. Materials and methods: This prospective observational study was conducted on 210 pregnant women attending the ANC OPD in the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College Jaipur, during the time period of January 2017 to June 2018 and fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criterion for the study. Detailed history taking and pre-evaluation done as per prestructured proforma followed by transvaginal ultrasonography with GE VOLUSON 730 PRO TVS probe IC 5–9 H instrument with 5–9 MHz which was done by a single operator after taking consent. Cervical length was measured at 11–14 weeks and subsequently, the subjects were followed up between 18 weeks and 22 weeks for the repeat readings. Statistical analysis was done to determine the significance of cervical length in predicting preterm labor. The analysis was done using SPSS version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) Windows software program. Results: In our study, 180 patients had a significant correlation of cervical length at 11–14 and 18–22 weeks in relation to preterm and term delivery. The mean cervical length of the study group at 18–22 weeks was 3.14 mm. Conclusion: Transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length is an effective tool for the evaluation of preterm delivery risk.
Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, et al. National, regional and worldwide estimates of preterm birthrates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet 2012;379(9832):2162–2172. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4.
Beck S, Wojdyla D, Say L, et al. The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: a systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity. Bill World Health Organ 2010;88(1):31–38. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.08.062554.
Alexander GR, Kogan M, Bader D, et al. US birth weight/gestational age-specific neonatal mortality: 1995–1997 rates for whites, hispanics, and blacks. Pediatrics 2003;111(1):e61–e66. DOI: 10.1542/peds.111.1.e61.
Behrman RE, Butler AS, Preterm birth: causes, consequences, and prevention. National Academies Press: Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2007.
Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. 4 Million neonatal deaths: When? where? why? Lancet 2005;365(9462):891–900. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5.
McCormick MC. The contribution of low birth weight to infant mortality and childhood morbidity. N Engl J Med 1985;312(2):82–90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198501103120204.
Berkowitz GS, Papiernik E. Epidemiology of preterm birth. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15(2):414–443. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036128.
Schaaf JM, Hof MF, Mol B, et al. Recurrence risk of preterm birth in subsequent twin pregnancy after preterm singleton delivery. BJOG 2012;119(13):1624–1629. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03504.x.
Khandelwal M. Vaginal progesterone in risk reduction of preterm birth in women with short cervix in the mid trimester of pregnancy. Int J Womens Health 2012;4:481–490. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S28944.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Prediction and prevention of preterm birth. Practice bulletin no. 130. Obstet Gynaecol 2012;120:964–967.
Okitsu O, Mimura T, Nakayama T, et al. Early prediction of preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992;2(6):402–409. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1992.02060402.x.
Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman K, et al. Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177(4):723–730. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70259-X.
To MS, Skentou C, Chan C, et al. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-week scan: standardizing techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17(3):217–219. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00369.x.
Andersen HF, Nugent CE, Wanty SD, et al. Prediction of risk for preterm delivery by ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163(3):859–867..
Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, 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 1996;334(9):567–572. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199602293340904.
Kore SJ, Rao S, IBhagwat A, et al. Prediction of preterm labour by transvaginal sonography. Bombay Hospital J 2004;46(3).
Moroz LA, Simhan HN. Rate of sonographic cervical shortening and the risk of spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynec 2012;206(3):234.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.11.017.
Arora P, Maitra NK, Agarwal S. Cervical length measurement by transvaginal ultrasound at 20-24 weeks gestation and the timing and mode of delivery. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2012;4(1):22–24. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1165.
Hebbar S, Samjhana K. Role of mid-trimester transvaginal cervical ultrasound in prediction of preterm delivery. Med J Malaysia 2006;61(3):307–311.
Kore SJ, Parikh MP, Lakhotia S, et al. Preduction of risk of preterm delivery by cervical assessment by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Obstet Gynecol India 2009;59(2):131–135.
Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Sonographic measurement of uterine cervix at 18-22 weeks’ gestation and the risk of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92(6):902–907. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(98)00346-9.
Zuckerman BS, Walker DK, Frank DA, et al. Adolescent pregnancy: biobehavioural determinants of outcome. J Pediatr 1984;105(6):857–862. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3476(84)80066-9.