Lihe Zhang1, Qiao Zheng1, Hongning Xie2, Liu Du1, Lihong Wu1, Meifang Lin1. 1. Department of Ultrasound of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China. 2. Department of Ultrasound of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China. hongning_x@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish methodological criteria for the clinical application of E-cervix technology in non-pregnant women, evaluate cervical differences between non-pregnant CI patients and normal women, and explore the predictive value of E-cervix for CI in non-pregnant women. METHODS: In all, 46 non-pregnant women with CI and 46 non-pregnant women with full-term pregnancy experience were included. Elastic parameters (HR, IOS, EOS, IOS/EOS, CL) of the cervix were measured by transvaginal examination with a mid-sagittal section as the ROI, followed by examination of the whole cervix. The pressure of the probe on the cervix was divided into three levels. The elastic data of three consecutive images were separately obtained by two doctors for three pressure levels. Image stability and the effects of pressure were evaluated and the repeatability of the measurements was tested. In the case and control groups, cervical elasticity images were selected by standardized operation methods. Differences in the parameters between the two groups were determined and the diagnostic efficiency of each parameter was analyzed. RESULTS: The HR, IOS, and EOS showed significant differences when measured on different sequential images obtained by continuous mapping (p < 0.05). The elastic parameters obtained from the first and last two images were significantly different (p < 0.05) and there were no significant differences between the elastic parameters obtained from the last two images (p > 0.05). The HR, IOS, EOS, and IOS/EOS showed significant differences among the pressure levels (p < 0.05), while the IOS showed a significant difference only between grades 0 and 2 (p < 0.05). E-cervix showed good repeatability within and among operators. The elastic parameters obtained by E-cervix in the CI group and control group were significantly different. ROC curve analysis showed that the HR was the most sensitive index for diagnosing CI. CONCLUSION: In E-cervix data acquisition, the first image should be excluded and the probe should not put pressure on the cervix. E-cervix has good retest and inter-observer reliability. Compared with normal women, CI patients showed a relatively softer and shorter cervix. E-cervix can be used as an important diagnostic tool for assessing cervical strain.
OBJECTIVES: To establish methodological criteria for the clinical application of E-cervix technology in non-pregnant women, evaluate cervical differences between non-pregnant CI patients and normal women, and explore the predictive value of E-cervix for CI in non-pregnant women. METHODS: In all, 46 non-pregnant women with CI and 46 non-pregnant women with full-term pregnancy experience were included. Elastic parameters (HR, IOS, EOS, IOS/EOS, CL) of the cervix were measured by transvaginal examination with a mid-sagittal section as the ROI, followed by examination of the whole cervix. The pressure of the probe on the cervix was divided into three levels. The elastic data of three consecutive images were separately obtained by two doctors for three pressure levels. Image stability and the effects of pressure were evaluated and the repeatability of the measurements was tested. In the case and control groups, cervical elasticity images were selected by standardized operation methods. Differences in the parameters between the two groups were determined and the diagnostic efficiency of each parameter was analyzed. RESULTS: The HR, IOS, and EOS showed significant differences when measured on different sequential images obtained by continuous mapping (p < 0.05). The elastic parameters obtained from the first and last two images were significantly different (p < 0.05) and there were no significant differences between the elastic parameters obtained from the last two images (p > 0.05). The HR, IOS, EOS, and IOS/EOS showed significant differences among the pressure levels (p < 0.05), while the IOS showed a significant difference only between grades 0 and 2 (p < 0.05). E-cervix showed good repeatability within and among operators. The elastic parameters obtained by E-cervix in the CI group and control group were significantly different. ROC curve analysis showed that the HR was the most sensitive index for diagnosing CI. CONCLUSION: In E-cervix data acquisition, the first image should be excluded and the probe should not put pressure on the cervix. E-cervix has good retest and inter-observer reliability. Compared with normal women, CI patients showed a relatively softer and shorter cervix. E-cervix can be used as an important diagnostic tool for assessing cervical strain.
Authors: Emma S Gargus; Kristen L Jakubowski; Gabriel A Arenas; Scott J Miller; Sabrina S M Lee; Teresa K Woodruff Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.845