Mid Trimester Transvaginal Ultrasound Assessment of Cervix for Prediction of Primary Caesarean Section

Mamta Rath Datta^*, Shikha Parashar, Priyanka Mukherjee, Sarita Kumari, Ankush Nandkishor Raut

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, India.

DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2015.515121                

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the role of mid-trimester transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervix in predicting the risk of primary cesarean section. Methods: Hundred pregnant women, who attended out-patient department of Tata Main Hospital for ante natal examination, from 1^st December 2011 to 1^st December 2012, were taken up for the study. Only those who had confirmed dates were included in the study. Transvaginal sonography was done at 18 - 26 week to measure cervical length. Parameters studied were gestational age at delivery, whether spontaneous or induced, duration of labor, pregnancy outcome and mode of delivery and indication for cesarean section. Results: Majority of LSCS were in the group with cervical length ≥4 cm (57.1%) with “p” value of <0.0001. Only 13.8% women who had vaginal delivery had cervical length ≥4 cm. Out of the 32 women with cervical length ≥4 cm, 26 (81.3%) required induction of labor and 10 (31.3%) delivered after 40 weeks. Mean cervical length for spontaneous onset of labor was 3.11 ± 0.85 cm and for induction of labor was 4.36 ± 1.11 cm (“p” value ≤ 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to study outcome variable of mode of delivery. Cervical length and induction to delivery interval were found to be independent predictor of mode of delivery. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the best cut-off point for prediction of primary cesarean section was 40 mm for cervical length. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of cervical length as a predictor of mode of delivery was 54.8%, 91.4%, 82.1% and 73.6% respectively. R² (coefficient of determination) was 0.271. Conclusion: Transvaginal cervical length measurement at mid trimester can be used as a predictive tool to determine the risk of primary cesarean section as well as the need of induction of labor.

Keywords

Ultrasound, Prediction, Miscarriage

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Smith, G.C.S., Celik, E., To, M. and Khouri, O. (2008) Cervical Length at Mid-Pregnancy and Risk of Primary Cesarean Delivery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 1346-1353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0706834
[2]	Cetin, M. and Cetin, A. (1997) The Role of Transvaginal Sonography in Predicting Recurrent Preterm Labour in Patients with Intact Membranes. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, 74, 7-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(97)02756-5
[3]	Paterson-Brown, S., Fisk, N.M., Edmonds, D.K. and Rodeck, C.H. (1991) Preinduction Cervical Assessment by Bishop’s Score and Transvaginal Ultrasound. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 40, 17-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(91)90039-N
[4]	Kalu, C.A., Umeora, O.U., Egwuatu, E.V. and Okwor, A.( 2012) Predicting Mode of Delivery Using Mid-Pregnancy Ultrasonographic Measurement of Cervical Length. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 15, 338-343.
[5]	Ware, V. and Raynor, B.D. (2000) Transvaginal Ultrasonographic Cervical Measurement as a Predictor of Successful Labour Induction. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 182, 1030-1032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mob.[phone]
[6]	Yang, S.H., Roh, C.R. and Kim, J.-H. (2004) Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Cervical Assessment before Induction of Labour. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 23, 375-382.
[7]	Rane, S.M., Guirgis, R.R., Higgins, B. and Nicolaides, K.H. (2004) The Value of Ultrasound in the Prediction of Successful Induction of Labour. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 24, 538-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.1100
[8]	Paterson-Brown, S., Fisk, N.M., Edmonds, D.K. and Rodeck, C.H. (1991) Preinduction Cervical Assessment by Bishop’s Score and Transvaginal Ultrasound. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 40, 17-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(91)90039-N
[9]	Mukherji, J., Anant, M., Ghosh, S., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Hazra, A. and Kamilya, G.S. (2011) Normative Data of Cervical Length in Singleton Pregnancy in Women Attending a Tertiary Care Hospital in Eastern India. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 133, 492-496.
[10]	Park, K.H. (2007) Transvaginal Ultrasonographic Cervical Measurement in Predicting Failed Labour Induction and Caesarean Delivery for Failure to Progress in Nulliparous Women. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 22, 722-727. http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2007.22.4.722
[11]	Tanir, H.M., Sener, T. and Yildiz, Z. (2008) Digital and Transvaginal Ultrasound Cervical Assessment for Prediction of Successful Labor Induction. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 100, 52-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.07.014
[12]	Gonen, R., Degani, S. and Ron, A. (1998) Prediction of Successful Induction of Labour: Comparison of Transvaginal Ultrasonography and the Bishop Score. European Journal of Ultrasound, 7, 183-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-8266(98)00042-1
[13]	Watson, W.J., Stevens, D., Welter, S. and Day, D. (1996) Factors Predicting Successful Labour Induction. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 88, 990-992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00321-3
[14]	Gomez, R., Galasso, M., Romero, R., Mazor, M., Sorokin, Y., Goncalves, L. and Treadwell, M. (1994) 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. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 171, 956-964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(94)90014-0
[15]	Rane, S.M., Guirgis, R.R, Higgins, B. and Nicolaides, K.H. (2004) The Value of Ultrasound in the Prediction of Successful Induction of Labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 24, 538-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.1100