Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Cervical Length in Labor and Delivery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management

  • 1177 Accesses

Abstract

Over the last two decades, extensive research had been done evaluating the role of ultrasonographic assessment of the cervix in various clinical settings. This chapter reviews the evidence behind the use of cervical length in various clinical scenarios encountered on labor and delivery unit.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Phelps JY, Higby K, Smyth MH, Ward JA, Arredondo F, Mayer AR (1995) Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173(3 Pt 1):942–945

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Floyd WS (1961) Cervical dilatation in the mid-­trimester of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 18:380–381

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, Mazor M, Sorokin Y, Goncalves L et al (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. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(4):956–964

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Iams JD, Paraskos J, Landon MB, Teteris JN, Johnson FF (1994) Cervical sonography in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol 84(1):40–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Crane JM, Van den Hof M, Armson BA, Liston R (1997) Transvaginal ultrasound in the prediction of preterm delivery: singleton and twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol 90(3):357–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Murakawa H, Utumi T, Hasegawa I, Tanaka K, Fuzimori R (1993) Evaluation of threatened preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 82(5):829–832

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Timor-Tritsch IE, Boozarjomehri F, Masakowski Y, Monteagudo A, Chao CR (1996) Can a “snapshot” sagittal view of the cervix by transvaginal ultrasonography predict active preterm labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 174(3):990–995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rizzo G, Capponi A, Arduini D, Lorido C, Romanini C (1996) The value of fetal fibronectin in cervical and vaginal secretions and of ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix in predicting premature delivery for patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(5):1146–1151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Malagrida L, Giudicelli Y, Perdu M, Houssin I et al (1997) Evaluating the risk of preterm delivery: a comparison of fetal fibronectin and transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176(1 Pt 1):196–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vendittelli F, Mamelle N, Munoz F, Janky E (2001) Transvaginal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix in hospitalized women with preterm labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 72(2):117–125

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tekesin I, Hellmeyer L, Heller G, Romer A, Kuhnert M, Schmidt S (2003) Evaluation of quantitative ultrasound tissue characterization of the cervix and cervical length in the prediction of premature delivery for patients with spontaneous preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(2):532–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsoi E, Akmal S, Rane S, Otigbah C, Nicolaides KH (2003) Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21(6):552–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuchs IB, Henrich W, Osthues K, Dudenhausen JW (2004) Sonographic cervical length in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes presenting with threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(5):554–557

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Volumenie JL, Luton D, De Spirlet M, Sibony O, Blot P, Oury JF (2004) Ultrasonographic cervical length measurement is not a better predictor of preterm delivery than digital examination in a population of patients with idiopathic preterm labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 117(1):33–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsoi E, Fuchs IB, Rane S, Geerts L, Nicolaides KH (2005) Sonographic measurement of cervical length in threatened preterm labor in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25(4):353–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gomez R, Romero R, Nien JK, Chaiworapongsa T, Medina L, Kim YM et al (2005) A short cervix in women with preterm labor and intact membranes: a risk factor for microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(3):678–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N, Antsaklis A (2005) Cervical assessment in women with threatened preterm labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 17(5):309–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jenkins SM, Kurtzman JT, Osann K (2006) Dynamic cervical change: is real-time sonographic cervical shortening predictive of preterm delivery in patients with symptoms of preterm labor? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27(4):373–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Holst RM, Jacobsson B, Hagberg H, Wennerholm UB (2006) Cervical length in women in preterm labor with intact membranes: relationship to intra-amniotic inflammation/microbial invasion, cervical inflammation and preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28(6):768–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Palacio M, Sanin-Blair J, Sanchez M, Crispi F, Gomez O, Carreras E et al (2007) The use of a variable cut-off value of cervical length in women admitted for preterm labor before and after 32 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29(4):421–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gramellini D, Fieni S, Kaihura C, Modena AB (2007) Cervical length as a predictor of preterm delivery: gestational age-related percentiles vs fixed cut-offs. Acta Biomed 78(3):220–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alfirevic Z, Allen-Coward H, Molina F, Vinuesa CP, Nicolaides K (2007) Targeted therapy for threatened preterm labor based on sonographic measurement of the cervical length: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29(1):47–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmitz T, Kayem G, Maillard F, Lebret MT, Cabrol D, Goffinet F (2008) Selective use of sonographic cervical length measurement for predicting imminent preterm delivery in women with preterm labor and intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(4):421–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Adhikari K, Bagga R, Suri V, Takhtani M (2011) Cervical length compared to Bishop’s score for prediction of pre-term birth in women with pre-term labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 31(3):213–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(1):54–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ness A, Visintine J, Ricci E, Berghella V (2007) Does knowledge of cervical length and fetal fibronectin affect management of women with threatened preterm labor? A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(4):426.e1–426.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Carroll SG, Ville Y, Greenough A, Gamsu H, Patel B, Philpott-Howard J et al (1995) Preterm prelabour amniorrhexis: intrauterine infection and interval between membrane rupture and delivery. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 72(1):F43–F46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kenyon SL, Taylor DJ, Tarnow-Mordi W, ORACLE Collaborative Group (2001) Broad-spectrum antibiotics for preterm, prelabour rupture of fetal membranes: the ORACLE I randomised trial ORACLE Collaborative Group. Lancet 357(9261):979–988

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schucker JL, Mercer BM (1996) Midtrimester premature rupture of the membranes. Semin Perinatol 20(5):389–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Vermillion ST, Soper DE, Bland ML, Newman RB (2000) Effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroid administration after preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(4):925–929

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelson LH, Anderson RL, O’Shea TM, Swain M (1994) Expectant management of preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(2):350–356, discussion 356–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Goldenberg RL, Nelson KG, Davis RO, Koski J (1984) Delay in delivery: influence of gestational age and the duration of delay on perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 64(4):480–484

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Rizzo G, Capponi A, Angelini E, Vlachopoulou A, Grassi C, Romanini C (1998) The value of transvaginal ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix in predicting preterm delivery in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 11(1):23–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Nochimson DJ, Weinbaum PJ (1985) Degree of oligohydramnios and pregnancy outcome in patients with premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 66(2):162–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Nochimson DJ, Weinbaum PJ, Escoto DT, Mirochnick MH (1986) Qualitative amniotic fluid volume versus amniocentesis in predicting infection in preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 67(4):579–583

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gonik B, Bottoms SF, Cotton DB (1985) Amniotic fluid volume as a risk factor in preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 65(4):456–459

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Romero R, Yoon BH, Mazor M, Gomez R, Gonzalez R, Diamond MP et al (1993) A comparative study of the diagnostic performance of amniotic fluid glucose, white blood cell count, interleukin-6, and gram stain in the detection of microbial invasion in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169(4):839–851

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lewis DF, Major CA, Towers CV, Asrat T, Harding JA, Garite TJ (1992) Effects of digital vaginal examinations on latency period in preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 80(4):630–634

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lenihan JP Jr (1984) Relationship of antepartum pelvic examinations to premature rupture of the membranes. Obstet Gynecol 63(1):33–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schutte MF, Treffers PE, Kloosterman GJ, Soepatmi S (1983) Management of premature rupture of membranes: the risk of vaginal examination to the infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol 146(4):395–400

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Carlan SJ, Richmond LB, O’Brien WF (1997) Randomized trial of endovaginal ultrasound in preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 89(3):458–461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gire C, Faggianelli P, Nicaise C, Shojai R, Fiori A, Chau C et al (2002) Ultrasonographic evaluation of cervical length in pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19(6):565–569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Tsoi E, Fuchs I, Henrich W, Dudenhausen JW, Nicolaides KH (2004) Sonographic measurement of cervical length in preterm prelabor amniorrhexis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(5):550–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Boozarjomehri F, Timor-Tritsch I, Chao CR, Fox HE (1994) Transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix before labor: presence of cervical wedging is associated with shorter duration of induced labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(4):1081–1087

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Blanch G, Olah KS, Walkinshaw S (1996) The presence of fetal fibronectin in the cervicovaginal secretions of women at term–its role in the assessment of women before labor induction and in the investigation of the physiologic mechanisms of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174(1 Pt 1):262–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bishop EH (1964) Pelvic Scoring for Elective Induction. Obstet Gynecol 24:266–268

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ (1992) The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 79(2):214–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J (2007) Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29(5):568–573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ware V, Raynor BD (2000) Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(5):1030–1032

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Yang SH, Roh CR, Kim JH (2004) Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor. J Ultrasound Med 23(3):375–382, quiz 384–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH (2001) Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(6):623–628

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C (2002) Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19(3):254–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH (2004) The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(5):538–549

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM, Edmonds DK, Rodeck CH (1991) Preinduction cervical assessment by Bishop’s score and transvaginal ultrasound. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 40(1):17–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Ville Y (2005) Comparison of pre-induction ultrasonographic cervical length and Bishop score in predicting risk of cesarean section after labor induction with prostaglandins. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 33(1–2):17–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Roman H, Verspyck E, Vercoustre L, Degre S, Col JY, Firmin JM et al (2004) Does ultrasound examination when the cervix is unfavorable improve the prediction of failed labor induction? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23(4):357–362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC (2001) Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 98(1):2–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM (2007) Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(2):186–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadalti M, Severi FM et al (2003) Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(5):1361–1367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D (1996) Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 88(6):990–992

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Keepanasseril A, Suri V, Bagga R, Aggarwal N (2007) Pre-induction sonographic assessment of the cervix in the prediction of successful induction of labour in nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 47(5):389–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A (1998) Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound 7(3):183–187

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Vankayalapati P, Sethna F, Roberts N, Ngeh N, Thilaganathan B, Bhide A (2008) Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: prediction of spontaneous onset of labor and successful vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(3):328–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Van Holsbeke C, Van Der Tweel I, Stoutenbeek P, Visser GH (2008) Sonographic longitudinal cervical length measurements in nulliparous women at term: prediction of spontaneous onset of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32(5):652–656

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Hessabi M (2000) Comparison of the Bishop score, ultrasonographically measured cervical length, and fetal fibronectin assay in predicting time until delivery and type of delivery at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(1 Pt 1):108–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Ramanathan G, Yu C, Osei E, Nicolaides KH (2003) Ultrasound examination at 37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of pregnancy outcome: the value of cervical assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22(6):598–603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Strobel E, Sladkevicius P, Rovas L, De Smet F, Karlsson ED, Valentin L (2006) Bishop score and ultrasound assessment of the cervix for prediction of time to onset of labor and time to delivery in prolonged pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28(3):298–305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, Jeong EH, Jung HJ, Oh KJ (2011) Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38(2):198–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Bartha JL, Romero-Carmona R, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R (2005) Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25(2):155–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, 834 Chestnut St., Suite 400, 19107, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Sushma Potti M.D. & Vincenzo Berghella M.D., Ph.D.

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre for Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Gian Carlo Di Renzo M.D., Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Sushma Potti M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gian Carlo Di Renzo M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincenzo Berghella M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Berghella M.D., Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Santa Maria Hospital, C. so . A. De Gasperi 314-A, Bari, 70125, Italy

    Antonio Malvasi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Potti, S., Renzo, G.C.D., Berghella, V. (2012). Use of Cervical Length in Labor and Delivery. In: Malvasi, A. (eds) Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29939-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29939-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29938-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29939-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation