Use of translabial three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound for cervical assessment before labor induction

References

[1] Osterman MJ, Martin JA. Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age. NCHS Data Brief. 2014;155:1–8.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Romero R, Gomez R, Sepulveda W. The uterine cervix, ultrasound and prematurity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992;2:385–8.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1992.02060384-2.xSuche in Google Scholar

[3] Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM, Edmonds DK, Rodeck CH. Preinduction cervical assessment by Bishop’s score and transvaginal ultrasound. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;40:17–23.10.1016/0028-2243(91)90039-NSuche in Google Scholar

[4] Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:538–49.10.1002/uog.1100Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Rane SM, Pandis GK, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. Pre-induction sonographic measurement of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: the effect of parity in the prediction of induction-to-delivery interval. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:40–4.10.1002/uog.165Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1030–2.10.1067/mob.2000.105399Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:623–8.10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00580.xSuche in Google Scholar

[8] Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:990–2.10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00321-3Suche in Google Scholar

[9] Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadalti M, Severi FM, et al. 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. 2003;189:1361–7.10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00725-7Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Gonen R, Degani S, Ron A. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound. 1998;7:183–7.10.1016/S0929-8266(98)00042-1Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Elghorori MR, Hassan I, Dartey W, Abdel-Aziz E, Bradley M. Comparison between subjective and objective assessments of the cervix before induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26:521–6.10.1080/01443610600797459Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[12] Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:568–73.10.1002/uog.4018Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Gómez-Laencina AM, García CP, Asensio LV, Ponce JA, Martínez MS, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Sonographic cervical length as a predictor of type of delivery after induced labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285:1523–8.10.1007/s00404-011-2178-1Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Severi FM, Bocchi C, Florio P, Picciolini E, D’Aniello G, Petraglia F. Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound in the assessment of the cervix to predict preterm delivery. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:1261–5.10.1016/S0301-5629(03)01011-1Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Bega G, Lev-Toaff A, Kuhlman K, Berghella V, Parker L, Goldberg B, et al. Three-dimensional multiplanar transvaginal ultrasound of the cervix in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:351–8.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00184.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Rovas L, Sladkevicius P, Strobel E, Valentin L. Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound assessment of the cervix for the prediction of successful induction of labor with prostaglandin in prolonged pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:933–9.10.7863/jum.2005.24.7.933Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Sonek J, Shellhaas C. Cervical sonography: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11:71–8.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.11010071.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, To MS, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;17:335–40.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00345.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Ramanathan G, Yu C, Osei E, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound examination at 37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of pregnancy outcome: the value of cervical assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:598–603.10.1002/uog.913Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Chastang C, Ville Y. Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low Bishop score. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:192–6.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00549.xSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:2–6.Suche in Google Scholar

[22] Rovas L, Sladkevicius P, Strobel E, De Smet F, De Moor B, Valentin L. Three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of the cervix for predicting time to spontaneous onset of labor and time to delivery in prolonged pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28:306–11.10.1002/uog.2805Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Alcázar JL. Three-dimensional power Doppler derived vascular indices: what are we measuring and how are we doing it? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:485–7.10.1002/uog.6144Suche in Google Scholar PubMed