Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 284, Issue 1, pp 13–18 | Cite as

Evaluation of placental maturity by the sonographic textures

  • Chih-Yen Chen
  • Hung-Wen Su
  • Shih-Han Pai
  • Chi-Wen Hsieh
  • Tai-Lang Jong
  • Chun-Sen Hsu
  • Szu-Yuan ChouEmail author
Materno-Fetal Medicine



Routine ultrasound screening to predict gestational age is important for risk assessment of pregnancy complications among pregnant women. We explored a quantitative method for sonographic analysis of placental texture, with the objective of reproducible measurement.


We studied 151 pregnant women; the gestational ages of their fetuses ranged from 10 to 38 weeks. Three experienced sonographers delineated the placental contour to define the region of interest (ROI). From these sonograms, 72 texture features were derived from the spatial gray-level dependence matrices and gray-level difference matrices. We used these as input variables in a multiple linear regression analysis.


A significant positive correlation (P < 0.01) was found between the multiple linear regression results and the corresponding gestation ages by the three assessors (r A = 0.755, r B = 0.851, and r C = 0.832). We also found good agreement between multiple linear regression results for the three observers. Their κ statistic values were 0.685 between assessors A and B, 0.679 between A and C, and 0.804 between B and C.


Quantitative sonography using texture analysis of the placenta was useful in practice to determine gestational age.


Placenta Maturity Texture Sonography Gestational age 


Conflict of interest statement



  1. 1.
    Raio L, Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Nelle M, Dürig P, Schneider H (2004) The thick heterogeneous (jellylike) placenta: a strong predictor of adverse pregnancy outcome. Prenat Diagn 24:182–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tekesin I, Anderer G, Hellmeyer L, Stein W, Kühnert M, Schmidt S (2004) Assessment of fetal lung development by quantitative ultrasonic tissue characterization: a methodical study. Prenat Diagn 24:671–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Villar J, Carroli G, Wojdyla D, Abalos E, Giordano D, Ba’aqeel H, Farnot U, Bergsjø P, Bakketeig L, Lumbiganon P, Campodónico L, Al-Mazrou Y, Lindheimer M, Kramer M (2006) Preeclampsia, gestational hypertension and intrauterine growth restriction, related or independent conditions? Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:921–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grannum PA, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC (1979) The ultrasonic changes in the maturing placenta and their relation to fetal pulmonic maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 133:915–922PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McKenna D, Tharmaratnam S, Mahsud S, Dornan J (2005) Ultrasonic evidence of placental calcification at 36 weeks’ gestation: maternal and fetal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84:7–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sau A, Seed P, Langford K (2004) Intraobserver and interobserver variation in the sonographic grading of placental maturity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23:374–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abramowicz JS, Sheiner E (2007) In utero imaging of the placenta: importance for diseases of pregnancy. Placenta 28:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morris DT (1988) An evaluation of the use of texture measurements for the tissue characterisation of ultrasonic images of in vivo human placentae. Ultrasound Med Biol 14:387–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quinlan RW, Cruz AC, Buhi WC, Martin M (1982) Changes in placental ultrasonic appearance II. Pathologic significance of Grade III placental changes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 144:471–473PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazzi GM, Gross TL, Sokol RJ, Kazzi NJ (1983) Detection of intrauterine growth retardation: a new use for sonographic placental grading. Am J Obstet Gynecol 145:733–737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crawford DC, Fenton DW, Price WI (1985) Ultrasonic tissue characterization of the placenta: Is it of clinical value. J Clin Ultrasound 13:533–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maeda K, Akaiwa A, Kihaile PE, Mio Y, Toda T (1989) Fetal and placental tissue characterization with ultrasound. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on the fetus as a patient. Recherche Gynécologie 1:301–302Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haralick RM, Dinstein I, Shanmugam K (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:610–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weszka JS, Rosenfeld A (1975) A comparative study of texture measures for terrain classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 6:269–285Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rawlings JO, Pantula SG, Dickey DA (1998) Applied regression analysis: a research tool. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rego LC, de Souza MC (2002) Improved estimation of left ventricular hypertrophy. IEEE Eng Med Biol 21:66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benirschke K, Kaufmann P (2000) Pathology of the human placenta. Springer, VerlagGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poggi SH, Bostrom KI, Demer LL, Skinner HC, Koos BJ (2001) Placental calcification: a metastatic process? Placenta 22:591–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haney AF, Trought WS (1980) The sonolucent placenta in high-risk obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 55:38–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varma VA, Kim KM (1985) Placental calcification: ultrastructural and X-ray microanalytic studies. Scanning Electr Microsc Pt4:1567–1572Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown HL, Miller JM, Khawli O, Gabert HA (1988) Premature placental calcification in maternal cigarette smokers. Obstet Gynecol 71:914–917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kingdom J (1998) Placental pathology in obstetrics: adaptation or failure of the villous tree? Placenta (Eastbourne) 19:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nowak PM, Nardozza LM, Araujo JE, Rolo LC, Moron AF (2008) Comparison of placental volume in early pregnancy using multiplanar and VOCAL methods. Placenta 29:241–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wegrzyn P, Faro C, Falcon O, Peralta CFA, Nicolaides KH (2005) Placental volume measured by three-dimensional ultrasound at 11 to 13+ 6 weeks of gestation: relation to chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:28–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen M, Leung KY, Lee CP, Tang MHY, Ho PC (2006) Placental volume measured by three-dimensional ultrasound in the prediction of fetal 0-thalassemia: a preliminary report. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28:166–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hafner E, Metzenbauer M, Höfinger D, Munkel M, Gassner R, Schuchter K, Dillinger-Paller B, Philipp K (2003) Placental growth from the first to the second trimester of pregnancy in SGA-foetuses and pre-eclamptic pregnancies compared to normal foetuses. Placenta 24:336–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guimarães Filho HA, Mattar R, Araujo Júnior E, da Costa LL, de Mello Junior CF, Nardozza LM, Nowak PM, Moron AF (2010) Reproducibility of three-dimensional power Doppler placental vascular indices in pregnancies between 26 and 35 weeks. Arch Gynecol Obstet. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1341-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chih-Yen Chen
    • 1
  • Hung-Wen Su
    • 2
  • Shih-Han Pai
    • 3
  • Chi-Wen Hsieh
    • 4
  • Tai-Lang Jong
    • 1
  • Chun-Sen Hsu
    • 2
  • Szu-Yuan Chou
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTaipei Medical University-Wan Fang HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTaipei Medical University-Shung Ho HospitalJhonghe, TaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations