Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Original Article

Comparison of the POP-Q examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and direct anatomic measurement of cervical length

Authors: Christina E. Dancz, Lisa Werth, Vanessa Sun, Sandy Lee, Daphne Walker, Begüm Özel

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2014

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Our objective was to determine the relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination for determining cervical length (CL) and CL at hysterectomy. Secondary objectives were to define cervical elongation using both measures in a urogynecologic population, determine the relationship between POP-Q estimate and CL on ultrasound (US) and examine the interobserver reliability of each mode of measurement.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study of women scheduled for hysterectomy at the Los Angeles County + University of Southern California (LAC + USC) medical center. CLs were measured by POP-Q and at the time of hysterectomy. Transvaginal US CLs were determined when available. Exam CL (eCL) was compared with anatomic (aCL) and US (uCL) CL. Repeat measures of eCL, uCL, and aCL were all compared for interobserver reliability.

Results

The study enrolled 151 women. Median eCL was 3.0 cm (0.5–9.0) (n = 149); average uCL was 2.3 cm ± 0.7 (n = 108), average aCL 2.8 cm ± 1.1 (n = 87); eCL correlated fairly with aCL (r = 0.3, p = 0.005, n = 88) but poorly with uCL (r = −0.13, p = 0.18, n = 105); uCL correlated poorly with aCL (r = 0.19, p = 0.14, n = 64). Interobserver reliability for eCL and aCL were good to excellent (eCL α=0.881; aCL α=0.889) but for uCL adequate (α=0.699). The 97.5 percentile cutoff for aCL was 5.0 cm and for eCL 8.0 cm.

Conclusions

The POP-Q examination estimate of CL correlates fairly with aCL at the time of hysterectomy; uCL does not appear to correlate with aCL or eCL. Cervical elongation may be defined as an anatomic length of 5.0 cm or a POP-Q estimate of 8.0 cm.

Berghella V, Bega G, Tolosa JE, Berghella M (2003) Ultrasound assessment of the cervix. Clin Obstet Gynecol 46:947–962PubMedCrossRef

Bump RC, Mattiason A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRef

Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20PubMed

Sonek JD, Iams JD, Blumenfeld M, Johnson F, Landon M, Gabbe S (1990) Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol 76:172–175PubMed

George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

Finamore PS, Goldstein HB, Vakili B (2009) Comparison of Estimated Cervical Length From the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Exam and Actual Cervical Length at Hysterectomy: Can We Accurately Determine Cervical Elongation? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 15:17–19. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181951e98 CrossRef

AMA. ICD-9-CM: International Classification of Diseases. 9th Revision. Clinical Modification 2012. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm.htm

Berger MB, Ramanah R, Guire KE, DeLancey JO (2012) Is cervical elongation associated with pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J 23:1095–1103PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ (1992) The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 79:214–218PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ibeanu OA, Chesson RR, Sandquist D, Perez J, Santiago K, Nolan TE (2010) Hypertrophic cervical elongation: clinical and histological correlations. Int Urogynecol J 21:995–1000PubMedCrossRef

11.

Farrell T, Cairns M, Leslie J (2003) Reliability and validity of two methods of three-dimensional cervical volume measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22:49–52PubMedCrossRef

12.

Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman K, Weiner S, Bolognese RJ, Wapner RJ (1997) Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:723–730PubMedCrossRef

13.

Goldberg J, Newman RB, Rust PF (1997) Interobserver reliability of digital and endovaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:853–858PubMedCrossRef

14.

Londero AP, Bertozzi S, Fruscalzo A, Driul L, Marchesoni D (2011) Ultrasonographic assessment of cervix size and its correlation with female characteristics, pregnancy, BMI, and other anthropometric features. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283:545–550PubMedCrossRef

15.

O’Leary JA, Ferrell RE (1986) Comparison of ultrasonographic and digital cervical evaluation. Obstet Gynecol 68:718–719PubMed

16.

Rozenberg P, Gillet A, Ville Y (2002) Transvaginal sonographic examination of the cervix in asymptomatic pregnant women: review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:302–311PubMedCrossRef

17.

Burger M, Weber-Rossler T, Willmann M (1997) Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: an interobserver study and new standards to improve the interobserver variability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 9:188–193PubMedCrossRef

18.

Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2012) Practice bulletin no. 130: Prediction and prevention of preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 120(4):964–973

Title: Comparison of the POP-Q examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and direct anatomic measurement of cervical length
Authors: Christina E. Dancz
Lisa Werth
Vanessa Sun
Sandy Lee
Daphne Walker
Begüm Özel
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2255-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of the POP-Q examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and direct anatomic measurement of cervical length

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Dorsal onlay buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty in female urethral stricture disease: a single-center experience

POP-Q stage I prolapse: Is it time to alter our terminology?

What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent

A late complication of transobturator tape procedure: vaginocutaneous fistula formation with vaginal mesh erosion

POP-Q 2.0: its time has come!

Calculation of membrane tension in selected sections of the pelvic floor