Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014, Article ID 826535, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/826535
Clinical Study

Quantitative Elastography for Cervical Stiffness Assessment during Pregnancy

1Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mathias-Spital Rheine, Frankenburgstraße 31, 48431 Rheine, Germany
2Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Franziskus Hospital, Hohenzollernring 72, 48145 Münster, Germany
3Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Udine, University of Udine, P.le S. M. Della Misericordia 1, 35100 Udine, Italy
4Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer Campus 1, 48149 Münster, Germany

Received 31 October 2013; Revised 27 December 2013; Accepted 30 December 2013; Published 5 March 2014

Academic Editor: Irma Virant-Klun

Copyright © 2014 A. Fruscalzo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. E. H. Bishop, “Pelvic scoring for elective induction,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 24, pp. 266–268, 1964. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Rozenberg, “The secret cervix,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 126–127, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. L. Palmeri and K. R. Nightingale, “What challenges must be overcome before ultrasound elasticity imaging is ready for the clinic?” Imaging in Medicine, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 433–444, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. Ophir, I. Cespedes, H. Ponnekanti, Y. Yazdi, and X. Li, “Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues,” Ultrasonic Imaging, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 111–134, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. T. M. Eggebø, I. Økland, C. Heien, L. K. Gjessing, P. Romundstad, and K. A. Salvesen, “Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score?” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 325–331, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. G. R. Sutherland, L. Hatle, P. Claus, J. D'Hooge, and B. H. Bijnens, Doppler Myocardial Imaging: A Textbook, BSWK Scientific Consulting and Publishing, Hasselt, Belgium, 2006.
  7. A. Fruscalzo, R. Schmitz, W. Klockenbusch, and J. Steinhard, “Reliability of cervix elastography in late first and second trimester of pregnancy,” Ultraschall in der Medizin, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. E101–E107, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. A. Fruscalzo, J. Steinhard, A. P. Londero et al., “Reliability of quantitative elastography of the uterine cervix in at-term pregnancies,” Journal of Perinatal Medicine, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 421–427, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. P. M. Bossuyt, J. B. Reitsma, D. E. Bruns et al., “Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. P. E. Shrout, “Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 301–317, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. I. Tekesin, L. Hellmeyer, G. Heller, A. Römer, M. Kühnert, and S. Schmidt, “Evaluation of quantitative ultrasound tissue characterization of the cervix and cervical length in the prediction of premature delivery for patients with spontaneous preterm labor,” The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 189, no. 2, pp. 532–539, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. M. Swiatkowska-Freund and K. Preis, “Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 52–56, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. F. S. Molina, L. F. Gómez, J. Florido, M. C. Padilla, and K. H. Nicolaides, “Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 685–689, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. A. Fruscalzo and R. Schmitz, “Quantitative cervical elastography in pregnancy,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 40, no. 5, p. 612, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  15. E. Hernandez-Andrade, S. S. Hassan, H. Ahn et al., “Evaluation of cervical stiffness during pregnancy using semiquantitative ultrasound elastography,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 152–161, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. T. Fuchs, R. Woyton, M. Pomorski et al., “Sonoelastography of the uterine cervix as a new diagnostic tool of cervical assessment in pregnant women—preliminary report,” Ginekologia Polska, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 12–16, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  17. J. D'Hooge, A. Heimdal, F. Jamal et al., “Regional strain and strain rate measurements by cardiac ultrasound: principles, implementation and limitations,” European Journal of Echocardiography, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 154–170, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A. Fruscalzo and R. Schmitz, “Reply,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 712–714, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. M. Parra-Saavedra, L. Gómez, A. Barrero, G. Parra, F. Vergara, and E. Navarro, “Prediction of preterm birth using the cervical consistency index,” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 44–51, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Fruscalzo, A. P. Londero, C. Frِhlich, M. Meyer-Wittkopf, and R. Schmitz, “Quantitative elastography of cervix for predicting labor induction success,” Ultraschall in der Medizin, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar