International Journal of Infertility & Fetal Medicine

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


A Study of Transvaginal Cervical Length Measurement at Term in the Prediction of Labor Outcome

Padmalatha Dakshnamurthy, Keerthana Vasu, Kannan Rajendran

Keywords : Cervical length measurement, Induction, Labor outcome, Mode of delivery, Onset of labor, Transvaginal ultrasound

Citation Information : Dakshnamurthy P, Vasu K, Rajendran K. A Study of Transvaginal Cervical Length Measurement at Term in the Prediction of Labor Outcome. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2023; 14 (3):129-132.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1325

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-11-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Background: The cervix and the changes it undergoes in pregnancy play an important role in the initiation and progress of labor. Materials and methods: The period of study was from January to December 2022 for a period of one year. A total of 370 low-risk primigravid antenatal mothers were included in the study. Cervical length was measured transvaginally at 37 weeks. Results and analysis: The average length of the cervix ranged from 1 to 5 cm. The cervical length was <3 cm in 48.3% of patients and >3 cm in 51.7% of patients. Among the 370 primigravid mothers, 248 were delivered by labor natural (67%), 97 by lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) (26.2%), and 25 by instrumental delivery (3.8%). Patients with a cervical length of <3 cm had a shorter duration of labor when compared to patients with a cervical length of >3 cm. The need for induction and the induction delivery interval was less in patients with shorter cervical length. Conclusion: Ultrasonography (USG) is one of the key investigations in antenatal care. Transvaginal cervical length measurement is a useful tool to predict favorable outcomes in labor induction and the progress of labor. Hence routine measurement of transvaginal cervical length in all the antenatal mothers will help the treating obstetrician in planning the management of delivery.

  1. Ludmir J, Sehdev HM. Anatomy and physiology of the uterine cervix. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43(3):433–439. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200009000-00003
  2. Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995;38(2):267–279. DOI: 10.1097/00003081-199506000-00009
  3. Anikwe CC, Okorochukwu BC, Uchendu E, et al. The effect of ultrasound-measured preinduction cervical length on delivery outcome in a low-resource setting. Sci World J 2020;2020:8273154. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8273154
  4. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, et al. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultra Obstetr Gynecol 2007;29(5):568–573. DOI: 10.1002/uog.4018
  5. Kanwar SN, Reena P, Priya BK. A comparative study of transvaginal sonography and modified bishop's score for cervical assessment before induction of labour. Schol J Appl Med Sci 2015;3(6):2284–2288. DOI: 10.36347/sjams.2015.v03i06.025
  6. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, et al. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultra Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(6):623–628. DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00580.x
  7. Gómez Laencina AM, Sánchez FG, Gimenez JH, et al. Comparison of ultrasonographic cervical length and the Bishop score in predicting successful labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86(7):799–804. DOI: 10.1080/00016340701409858
  8. Elghorori MR, Hassan I, Dartey W, et al. Comparison between subjective and objective assessments of the cervix before induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;26(6):521–526. DOI: 10.1080/01443610600797459
  9. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Chastang C, et al. Comparison of digital and ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in predicting time interval from induction to delivery in women with a low Bishop score. BJOG 2005;112(2):192–196. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00549.x
  10. Jaisaby A, Phaliwong P, Prommart S, et al. “The accuracy of cervical length for prediction of delivery in term pregnancy patients presenting with labor pain”. Siri Med J 2019;71(4):278–283. DOI: 10.33192/Smj.2019.42
  11. Ben-Harush Y, Kessous R, Weintraub AY, et al. The use of sonographic cervical length assessment for the prediction of time from induction to delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29(14):2332–2336. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1085018
  12. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Roos C, Arabin B, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in the supine and upright positions versus Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:213–220. DOI: 10.1002/uog.6219
  13. Cubal A, Carvalho J, Ferreira MJ, et al. Value of Bishop score and ultrasound cervical length measurement in the prediction of cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2013;39(9):1391–1396. DOI: 10.1111/jog.12077
  14. Kehila M, Abouda HS, Sahbi K, et al. Ultrasound cervical length measurement in prediction of labor induction outcome. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 2016;9(2):127–131. DOI: 10.3233/NPM-16915111
  15. Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182(5):1030–1032. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2000.105399
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.