4.6 Article

Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 301-306

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/uog.6224

Keywords

Cesarean section; reproducibility of results; three-dimensional; ultrasonography; uterine rupture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate the reliability of two- and three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurement of the thickness of the lower uterine segment (LUS) in pregnant women by transvaginal and transabdominal approaches. Methods This was a study of 30 pregnant women who bad bad at least one previous Cesarean section and were between 36 and 39 weeks' gestation, with singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation. Sonographic examinations were performed by two observers using both 4-7-MHz transabdominal and 5-8-MHz transvaginal volumetric probes. LUS measurements were performed using two- and three-dimensional ultrasound, evaluating the entire LUS thickness transabdominally and the LUS muscular thickness transvaginally. Each observer measured the LUS four times by each method. Reliability was analyzed by comparing the mean of the absolute differences, the intraclass correlation coefficients, the 95% limits of agreement and the proportion of differences <1 mm. Results Transvaginal ultrasound provided greater reliability in LUS measurements than did transabdominal ultrasound. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound improved significantly the reliability of the LUS muscular thickness measurement obtained transvaginally. Conclusions Ultrasonographic measurement of the LUS muscular thickness transvaginally appears more reliable than does that of the entire LUS thickness transabdominally. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound should be considered to improve measurement reliability. Copyright (c) 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available