Aguayo ME, Femat VAE, González HR, López TJD

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 251-253
PDF size: 197.06 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Cervical and endometrial measurement in the gynecological and obstetric patients is of vital importance. There is no consensus for the correct way in which should be made the measurement, more than anything is for an opinion of some experts.
Objective: To determine whether there are differences in measurement of endometrial or sagittal cross section of the uterus and cervix in the measurement of fractional linear fashion or along the cervical canal.
Material and Methods: Using a transvaginal ultrasound, was measured in a transverse and longitudinal endometrial lining. And by fractional measuring along the cervical canal and a linear manner from the internal to the external.
Results: We studied a total of 63 patients. The mean endometrial transversal measurement in a cross was 7.1. mm (SD ± 3.3) The mean endometrial longitudinally measured were: 7.9 mm (SD ± 3.4). The mean cervical measurement was fractionally 3.3.cm (SD ±0.4) Mean cervical linear measurement was 3.9 cm (SD ± 0.4). Using student’s t test where the value of p in the endometrial measurement was 0.0871 and p value in cervical measurement was 0.009, the latter being statistically significant.
Conclusions: With respect to the measurement of the endometrial lining, there is no significant difference do any of the two different techniques. However, measurement of the cervix, another significant difference (p = 0.009), so it should be further investigated which of these two techniques is the right way to establish more accurate diagnoses.

REFERENCES

1. Valentin L, Bergelin I. Intra and interobserver reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of cervical length and width in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;20:256-262.

2. Vayssiere C, Moriniere C, Camus E, Le Strat Y, Poty L, et al. Measuring cervical length with ultrasound: Evaluation of the procedures and duration of learning method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;20:575-579.

3. Skentou CMS, Zagaliki ACH, Nicolaides KH. Cervical assessment at the routine 23 week sean: Standardizing techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:217-219.

4. Sonographic evaluation of the uterine cervix. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics 1998;25(3).

5. Hertzberg BS, Livingston E, DeLong DM. Ultrasonography evaluation of the cervix Transperineal versus endovaginal imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:1071-1078.

6. Guzman E, Mellon Ch. Longitudinal assessment of endocervical canal length between 15 and 24 weeks gestation on women at risk for pregnancy loss or preterm birth. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1998;92(1).

7. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Stoutenbeek Ph, Visser GHA. Methods of sonographic cervical length measurement in pregnancy: a review of the literature. The Journal of Maternal-fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2006;19(12):755-762.

8. Jackson M, Ludmir J. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79: 214-218.