Hertzberg B S, Livingston E, DeLong D M, McNally P J, Fazekas C K, Kliewer M A
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
J Ultrasound Med. 2001 Oct;20(10):1071-8; quiz 1080. doi: 10.7863/jum.2001.20.10.1071.
This study compares transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography of the gravid cervix to evaluate image quality and assess for a systematic difference in cervical lengths measured by the 2 techniques.
Transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography of the cervix was performed on 64 pregnant women. Two physicians reviewed the images and rated the relative diagnostic value of the techniques for assessing the cervix and for evaluating for placenta previa. Cervical length was measured prospectively in both techniques. Data were analyzed to determine if there is a systematic difference in length using the 2 approaches and if length differences are dependent on gestational age.
There was a strong reviewer preference for endovaginal ultrasonographic images over transperineal images for both assessing the cervix (P< .001) and evaluating for placenta previa (P< .001). Despite this, transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonographic images were frequently rated as similar in diagnostic quality by both reviewers for depicting the cervix (35.9% of patients) and evaluating for placenta previa (57.8% of patients). The mean length of the cervix was slightly shorter at transperineal ultrasonography (28.4 mm) than at endovaginal ultrasonography (30.1 mm). When cervical lengths were subdivided by gestational age, however, a significant length discrepancy was found only in the 14- to 20-week gestational age range. In this age range, mean cervical length at transperineal ultrasonography (28.6 mm) averaged 5.5 mm less than at endovaginal ultrasonography (34.1 mm).
Both transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography can provide satisfactory images of the cervix, but endovaginal images are frequently superior to transperineal images. Endovaginal ultrasonography should be considered the optimal method for imaging the cervix in most situations. Transabdominal or transperineal ultrasonography can also be used, but if the cervix is not adequately depicted from these perspectives, endovaginal ultrasonography is indicated. Transperineal measurements of cervical length can be significantly shorter than endovaginal measurements, particularly before 20 weeks; therefore, short cervical lengths documented at transperineal ultrasonography before 20 weeks should be confirmed by endovaginal ultrasonography.
本研究比较经会阴超声和经阴道超声检查妊娠宫颈的图像质量,并评估两种技术测量宫颈长度的系统差异。
对64名孕妇进行经会阴和经阴道宫颈超声检查。两名医生查看图像,并对评估宫颈和前置胎盘的技术相对诊断价值进行评分。两种技术均前瞻性测量宫颈长度。分析数据以确定两种方法测量的长度是否存在系统差异,以及长度差异是否取决于孕周。
在评估宫颈(P<0.001)和前置胎盘(P<0.001)方面,与经会阴图像相比,两位医生都强烈倾向于经阴道超声图像。尽管如此,经会阴和经阴道超声图像在描绘宫颈(35.9%的患者)和评估前置胎盘(57.8%的患者)时,诊断质量经常被两位医生评为相似。经会阴超声测量的宫颈平均长度(28.4mm)略短于经阴道超声测量的宫颈平均长度(30.1mm)。然而,当按孕周细分宫颈长度时,仅在孕14至20周范围内发现了显著的长度差异。在此孕周范围内,经会阴超声测量的宫颈平均长度(28.6mm)比经阴道超声测量的宫颈平均长度(34.1mm)平均短5.5mm。
经会阴和经阴道超声均可提供满意的宫颈图像,但经阴道图像通常优于经会阴图像。在大多数情况下,经阴道超声应被视为宫颈成像的最佳方法。也可使用经腹或经会阴超声,但如果从这些角度不能充分描绘宫颈,则应采用经阴道超声。经会阴测量的宫颈长度可能明显短于经阴道测量,尤其是在20周之前;因此,孕20周前经会阴超声记录的宫颈长度较短时,应通过经阴道超声进行确认。