Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transperineal ultrasound in routine uterine cervix measurement

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is used in routine practice to evaluate cervical length (CL). This technique is nevertheless invasive and often viewed as uncomfortable, which is less the case with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS). This study was conducted in light of recent technological improvements in the ultrasound field to evaluate whether TPUS could be used as an alternative to TVUS in CL assessment.

Methods

This was a prospective single-blind study. Pregnant women requiring CL measurement during their emergency consultation were offered a second assessment by TPUS after an initial TVUS. TPUS was performed by a third-year OBGYN resident, unaware of the CL measurement obtained via TVUS.

Results

Seventy-three women were included. The mean ∂ was 0.59 mm. The interclass Pearson correlation coefficient between the two techniques was 0.8987 (95% CI [0.8429; 0.9353]). None of the tested factors were found to be associated with a difference between TPUS and TVUS CL measurements. ROC curve analysis indicated that a transperineal CL cut-off measurement of 24.9 mm was predictive of a transvaginal CL measurement below 25 mm. This threshold enabled a 95% sensitivity [75.1–99.9%] and a 100% specificity [93.3–100%] for the TPUS CL measurement technique.

Conclusion

TPUS should be acknowledged as a reliable alternative to TVUS for CL assessment in routine every day practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Yes.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

CL:

Cervical length

SD:

Standard deviation

TPUS:

Transperineal ultrasound

TVUS:

Transvaginal ultrasound

WG:

Weeks of gestation

References

  1. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J (2005) 4 million neonatal deaths: when? Where? Why? Lancet 365:891–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Haute Autorité de la Santé. Mesure de la longueur du canal cervical du col de l’utérus par échographie par voie vaginale: Intérêt dans la prévision de l’accouchement prématuré spontané. Rapport d’évaluation technologique. July 2010. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_894981/fr/mesure-de-la-longueur-du-canal-cervical-du-col-de-l-uterus-par-echographie-par-voie-vaginale-interet-dans-la-prevision-de-l-accouchement-premature-spontane

  3. Behrman RE, Butler AS (2007) Preterm birth: causes, consequences, and prevention. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on understanding premature birth and assuring healthy outcomes. National Academies Press (US). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11362/

  4. Sentilhes L, Sénat MV, Ancel PY et al (2016) Prevention of spontaneous preterm birth (excluding preterm premature rupture of membranes): Guidelines for clinical practice—text of the guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 45:1446–1456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2016.09.011 (short text)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ancel PY, Carbonne B, Dreyfus M et al (2002) La menace d’accouchement prématuré (MAP) à membranes intactes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 31:5S7-2S1128

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lim K, Butt K, Crane JM (2018) Ultrasonographic cervical length assessment in predicting preterm birth in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 40:e151–e164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.11.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berghella V, Saccone G (2019) Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD007235. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007235.pub4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khalifeh A, Berghella V (2016) Universal cervical length screening in singleton gestations without a previous preterm birth: ten reasons why it should be implemented. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214(603):e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kagan KO, Sonek J (2015) How to measure cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:358–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Larscheid P, Maass N, Kennes LN, Najjari L (2015) Transperineal ultrasound to measure cervical length of pregnant women in general and in particular with cervical insufficiency—a comparison of transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound as alternatives to transvaginal ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 36:59–64. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1355723

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Okun N, Tkatch S, Demianczuk N, Cohen T, Mayes D (2001) Is transperineal ultrasonography of cervical length in pregnant women as accurate as endovaginal ultrasonography? A prospective, blinded comparison of level of agreement of two techniques. J SOGC 23:592–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, To MS, Nicolaides KH (2001) Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography: cervical assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 17:335–340. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00345.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yazici G, Yildiz A, Tiras MB, Arslan M, Kanik A, Oz U (2004) Comparison of transperineal and transvaginal sonography in predicting preterm delivery. J Clin Ultrasound 32:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Stoutenbeek P, Visser GHA (2006) Methods of sonographic cervical length measurement in pregnancy: a review of the literature. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 19:755–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050600852601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/

  16. Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Okland I, Romunstad P, Salvesen KA (2006) Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:387–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.2744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bennett SJ, Waterstone JJ, Cheng WC, Parsons J (1993) Complications of transvaginal ultrasound-directed follicle aspiration: a review of 2670 consecutive procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet 10:72–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ozdemir I, Demirci F, Yucel O (2005) Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix at each trimester in normal pregnant women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 45:191–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00378.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmitz T, Sentilhes L, Lorthe E et al (2018) Preterm premature rupture of membranes: CNGOF guidelines for clinical practice—short version. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol 46:998–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McIntosh J, Feltovich H, Berghella V, Manuck T (2016) The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215:B2-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boelig RC, Feltovich H, Spitz JL, Toland G, Berghella V, Iams JD (2017) Assessment of transvaginal ultrasound cervical length image quality. Obstet Gynecol 129:536–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ et al (1996) 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 334:567–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Carr DB, Smith K, Parsons L, Chansky K, Shields LE (2000) Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques. Obstet Gynecol 96:554–558

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dimassi K, Hammami A, Bennani S, Halouani A, Triki A, Gara MF (2016) Use of transperineal sonography during preterm labor. J Obstet Gynaecol 36:748–753. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2016.1154513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gauthier T, Marin B, Garuchet-Bigot A, Kanoun D, Catalan C, Caly H, Eyraud JL, Aubard Y (2014) Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasound cervical length measurement and preterm labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290:465–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3229-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kurtzman JT, Goldsmith LJ, Gall SA, Spinnato JA (1998) Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: a blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:852–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70177-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Owen J, Neely C, Northen A (1999) Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: a blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:780–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70300-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Kavvadias A, Makrydimas G (2010) Transvaginal cervical length measurement for prediction of preterm birth in women with threatened preterm labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.7457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, CHU Amiens Picardie, Amiens-Picardie University Hospital, 1 rond-point du Pr Christian Cabrol, 80054, Amiens cedex 1, France

    David Krief, Arthur Foulon, Ambre Tondreau, Fabrice Sergent, Jean Gondry & Julien Chevreau

  2. Clinical Research Department, Amiens-Picardie University Hospital, 80000, Amiens, France

    Momar Diouf

  3. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Jura Bernois Hospital, 2345, Saint Imier, Switzerland

    Julien Chevreau

Authors
  1. David Krief
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arthur Foulon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ambre Tondreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Momar Diouf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fabrice Sergent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean Gondry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Julien Chevreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DK protocol/project development, data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing. AF protocol/project development, data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing. AT data collection and management. MD data collection and management, statistical analysis. FS manuscript writing/editing. JG manuscript writing/editing. JC protocol/project development, data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur Foulon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

The study was approved in July 2019 by the local institutional review board (CPP Nord-Ouest; reference: ID-RCB 2018-A02562-53). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Fig. 1.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krief, D., Foulon, A., Tondreau, A. et al. Transperineal ultrasound in routine uterine cervix measurement. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307, 387–393 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06521-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06521-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation