Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2023
Measurement of Lower Uterine Segment Thickness to Detect Uterine Scar Defect: Comparison of Transabdominal and Transvaginal Ultrasound.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marchant Isobel, Lessard Lauriane, Bergeron Catherine, Jastrow Nicole, Gauthier Robert, Girard Mario, Guerby Paul, Vachon-Marceau Chantale, Maheux-Lacroix Sarah, Bujold Emmanuel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness measurement using transabdominal ultrasound (TA-US), transvaginal ultrasound (TV-US), or the combination of both methods can detect scar defect in women with prior cesarean. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of three approaches.
METHODS: Women with prior cesarean underwent LUS thickness measurement at 34-38 weeks' gestation. Among those who underwent repeat cesarean before labor, we compared the accuracy of TA-US, TV-US, and the thinner of the two measurements (the "combined measurement") for uterine scar dehiscence using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating curves with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the three approaches using a cut-off of 2.3 mm based on prior literature.
RESULTS: We included 747 participants. The mean LUS thickness was greater with TA-US (3.8 ± 1.6 mm) compared with TV-US (3.5 ± 1.9 mm) or the combined measurement (3.2 ± 1.5 mm; P < .001). The AUC was 78% (95% CI: 69%-87%), 85% (95% CI: 79%-91%), and 88% (95% CI: 82%-93%), respectively (all with P < .001). The AUC difference between TA-US and the combined measurement was not significant (P = .057). A LUS below 2.3 mm would have predicted 9 (45%) of the 20 cases of uterine scar dehiscence using TA-US, 17 (85%) using TV-US, and 18 (90%) using the combined measurement (P < .01).
CONCLUSION: The choice of ultrasound approach influences the measurement of the LUS thickness. The combination of the TA-US and TV-US seems to be superior for the detection of uterine dehiscence.
METHODS: Women with prior cesarean underwent LUS thickness measurement at 34-38 weeks' gestation. Among those who underwent repeat cesarean before labor, we compared the accuracy of TA-US, TV-US, and the thinner of the two measurements (the "combined measurement") for uterine scar dehiscence using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating curves with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the three approaches using a cut-off of 2.3 mm based on prior literature.
RESULTS: We included 747 participants. The mean LUS thickness was greater with TA-US (3.8 ± 1.6 mm) compared with TV-US (3.5 ± 1.9 mm) or the combined measurement (3.2 ± 1.5 mm; P < .001). The AUC was 78% (95% CI: 69%-87%), 85% (95% CI: 79%-91%), and 88% (95% CI: 82%-93%), respectively (all with P < .001). The AUC difference between TA-US and the combined measurement was not significant (P = .057). A LUS below 2.3 mm would have predicted 9 (45%) of the 20 cases of uterine scar dehiscence using TA-US, 17 (85%) using TV-US, and 18 (90%) using the combined measurement (P < .01).
CONCLUSION: The choice of ultrasound approach influences the measurement of the LUS thickness. The combination of the TA-US and TV-US seems to be superior for the detection of uterine dehiscence.