medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2024, Number 10

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2024; 92 (10)

Cervical length by ultrasound as a predictor of onset of labor

Reyes SMC, Flores FAT, Herrera OA, Guzmán HKA, Belmontes LAJ

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 415-421
PDF size: 190.81 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine whether cervical length, measured by endovaginal ultrasound in the third trimester of pregnancy, allows estimation of the time to onset of labor in patients with previous cesarean section and singleton fetuses, with the aim of favoring birth by delivery, and to evaluate the differences in measurements in the different trimesters of pregnancy.
Materials and Methods: Prospective, cohort, observational, longitudinal and analytical study carried out in pregnant patients with a history of previous cesarean section attended between January 2022 and December 2023 at the Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad de PEMEX, from January 2022 to December 2023. All patients had at least two cervical length measurements.
Results: Thirty-eight patients were included with a mean age of 33.3 years (SD ± 4.767), mean BMI of 27.57 (SD ± 3.718). Mean first cervical length measurement was 16.7 (SD ± 4.993) weeks, mean second measurement was 29.64 (SD ± 6.160) weeks, and mean third measurement was 37.38 (SD ± 1.045) weeks gestation. The mean time to delivery was 7.27 days (SD ± 4.094) and the mean weeks to delivery was 38.47 (SD ± 0.878). The cervical length measurement of 28 mm had a sensitivity of 77% for predicting the onset of labor on site days.
Conclusions: A cervical length measured by endovaginal ultrasound of less than 28 mm is more likely to indicate onset of labor within seven days.


REFERENCES

  1. Yoshida K. Bioengineering and the cervix: The past, current,and future for addressing preterm birth. Current Researchin Physiology 2023; 6: 100107-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crphys.2023.100107

  2. González JM, Romero R, Girardi G. Comparison of themechanisms responsible for cervical remodeling in pretermand term labor. J Reprod Immunol 2013; 97 (1): 112-19.https://doi.org/1016/j.jri.2012.07.008.

  3. Burgos-Artizzu XP, Baños N, Coronado-Gutiérrez D, et al. Midtrimesterprediction of spontaneous preterm birth with automatedcervical quantitative ultrasound texture analysis andcervical length: a prospective study. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 7469.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86906-8

  4. Beloosesky R, Khatib N, Ganem N, et al. Cervical lengthmeasured before delivery and the success rate of vaginalbirth after cesarean (VBAC). J Maternal Fetal Neonat Med2018; 31 (4): 464-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1288206

  5. Mesay F, Melese E, Wudie G, et al. A Prognostic study forthe development of risk prediction model for the successof vaginal birth following a cesarean surgery at felege hiwotcomprehensive specialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.Risk Manag and Healthc Policy 2023; 16: 55-68. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S395388

  6. Jo YS, Lee GS, Kim N, et al. Clinical efficacy of cervicallength and volume for prediction of labor onset in VBACcandidates. Int J Med Sci 2012; 1 (9): 738-42. https://doi.org/10.7150%2Fijms.5042

  7. Rizzo G, Bitsadze V, Jamilya Khizroeva, et al. Role ofante-partum ultrasound in predicting vaginal birth aftercesarean section: A prospective cohort study. Eur J ObstetGynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 256: 385-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.056

  8. Taha OT, Elprince M, Atwa KA, et al. Antenatal cervicallength measurement as a predictor of successful vaginalbirth. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2020; 20 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02878-z

  9. Kunzier NB, Kinzler WL, Chavez MR, et al. The use of cervicalsonography to differentiate true from false labor in term patientspresenting for labor check. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215 (3): 372.e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.031

  10. Celik E, To M, Gajewska K, et al. Cervical length and obstetrichistory predict spontaneous preterm birth: developmentand validation of a model to provide individualizedrisk assessment. UOG 2008; 31 (5): 549-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5333.

  11. Lamadrid-Figueroa H., Suárez-López L., González-Hernández D., La epidemia de cesáreas en México. InstitutoNacional de Salud Pública. https://insp.mx/assets/documents/webinars/2021/CISP_Epidemia_Cesareas.pdf

  12. Ramírez-Flores DA, Ruiz-Cabrera IL, Moreno-López RJ, et al.Índice de Robson: riesgo de cesárea en un centro de primernivel en México. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2023; 91 (8): 570-580.https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v91i8.8229

  13. Dakshnamurthy P, Vasu K, Rajendran K. A Study of TransvaginalCervical Length Measurement at Term in the Predictionof Labor Outcome. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2023; 14 (3):129-32. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1325

  14. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, et al. Transvaginal sonographicmeasurement of cervical length vs. Bishop scorein labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction ofcesarean delivery. Ultra Obstetr Gynecol 2007; 29 (5):568-73. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.4018

  15. Kanwar SN, Reena P, Priya BK, et al. A Comparative Study ofTrans vaginal sonography and modified Bishop's Score forcervical assessment before induction of labour. Schol J ApplMed Sci 2015; 3 (6): 2284-88. https://doi.org/10.36347/sjams.2015.v03i06.025

  16. Comas M, Cochs B, Laia Ferrer Martí, et al. Ultrasound examinationat term for predicting the outcome of delivery inwomen with a previous cesarean section. J Maternal-Fetal& Neonatal Medicine 2016; 3: 29 (23): 3870-4. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2016.1149566




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com