Stephanie T Romero1, Calla C Holmgren2, Helen Feltovich2, T Flint Porter2, M Sean Esplin2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah USA (S.T.R.); and Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah USA (C.C.H., H.F., T.F.P., M.S.E.). stephanieromero@health.usf.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah USA (S.T.R.); and Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah USA (C.C.H., H.F., T.F.P., M.S.E.).
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantify the time required for transvaginal cervical length measurements during a second-trimester anatomy scan and to evaluate patient attitudes regarding cervical length assessment. METHODS:Consenting women were randomly assigned to one of the following: (1) standard arm-cervix visualized, no prespecified cervical length measurement; (2) sequential arm-3 transabdominal cervical length measurements obtained, transvaginal sonography performed if images were inadequate or if any measurement was 3 cm or less; and (3) screening transvaginal sonography arm-3 transvaginal cervical length measurements obtained. Times were recorded for the entire examination and cervical length evaluation. Participants completed a questionnaire at the end of their visits. RESULTS:Sixty of 230 eligible women enrolled. Demographic characteristics were similar across groups except for body mass index, which was greater in the sequential arm than the screening arm (mean ± SD, 28.5 ± 7.75 versus 24.7 ± 3.89 kg/m(2); P = .03). There were no differences in total examination times between the 3 arms (24.8 ± 8.59 versus 27.8 ± 8.75 versus 28.5 ± 7.78 minutes; P= .39). There were no differences across groups in participant attitudes regarding examination discomfort or embarrassment. CONCLUSIONS: Performing screening transvaginal sonography to measure cervical length did not have a statistically significant impact on the amount of time for completion of the entire examination. Participants had positive responses regarding cervical length assessment by transabdominal and transvaginal sonography.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantify the time required for transvaginal cervical length measurements during a second-trimester anatomy scan and to evaluate patient attitudes regarding cervical length assessment. METHODS: Consenting women were randomly assigned to one of the following: (1) standard arm-cervix visualized, no prespecified cervical length measurement; (2) sequential arm-3 transabdominal cervical length measurements obtained, transvaginal sonography performed if images were inadequate or if any measurement was 3 cm or less; and (3) screening transvaginal sonography arm-3 transvaginal cervical length measurements obtained. Times were recorded for the entire examination and cervical length evaluation. Participants completed a questionnaire at the end of their visits. RESULTS: Sixty of 230 eligible women enrolled. Demographic characteristics were similar across groups except for body mass index, which was greater in the sequential arm than the screening arm (mean ± SD, 28.5 ± 7.75 versus 24.7 ± 3.89 kg/m(2); P = .03). There were no differences in total examination times between the 3 arms (24.8 ± 8.59 versus 27.8 ± 8.75 versus 28.5 ± 7.78 minutes; P= .39). There were no differences across groups in participant attitudes regarding examination discomfort or embarrassment. CONCLUSIONS: Performing screening transvaginal sonography to measure cervical length did not have a statistically significant impact on the amount of time for completion of the entire examination. Participants had positive responses regarding cervical length assessment by transabdominal and transvaginal sonography.