Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 284, Issue 4, pp 855–859

Transvaginal ultrasound of cervical length and its correlation to digital cervical examination, time to spontaneous labor and mode of delivery

  • Chad A. Grotegut
  • Mordechai Dulitzki
  • John P. Gaughan
  • Reuven Achiron
  • Eyal Schiff
  • Ossie Geifman-Holtzman
Materno-fetal Medicine



The objective of this study was to determine if transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) examination of cervical length correlates to digital pelvic examination and if it can predict time to and mode of delivery in term pregnancies.


We conducted a prospective cohort study of 726 consecutive non-laboring, term pregnant women presenting to University-based antenatal testing unit between 1 July 2001 and 31 March 2002. Subjects underwent a TVUS for cervical length followed by a digital cervical examination by a physician blinded to the results of the ultrasound. Linear regression analysis was used to correlate the findings of cervical length by ultrasound with cervical dilatation and effacement by digital examination.


In 726 women, the relationship between TVUS cervical length and cervical dilatation and effacement measured digitally were found to be significantly related (p < 0.001), but weak, with a 15 and 23% goodness of fit, respectively, based on the linear model. Using multivariate logistic and linear regression, respectively, TVUS cervical length predicted mode of delivery but did not predict time to spontaneous labor. Digital measurement of cervical dilatation was predictive of time to spontaneous labor.


There is a statistically significant correlation between TVUS measurement of cervical length and digital cervical exam though the correlation is weak. TVUS measurement of cervical length was predictive of mode of delivery while controlling for digital cervical examination, parity and time to spontaneous labor. Digital cervical dilatation was predictive of time to spontaneous delivery.


Ultrasonography Cervical length Digital examination Pregnancy 


  1. 1.
    Bishop EH (1964) Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 24:266–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedman EA, Niswander KR, Bayonet-Rivera NP, Sachtleben MR (1966) Relation of prelabor evaluation to inducibility and the course of labor. Obstet Gynecol 28(4):495–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hughey MJ, McElin TW, Bird CC (1976) An evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Obstet Gynecol 48(6):635–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhall K, Mittal SC, Kumar A (1987) Evaluation of preinduction scoring systems. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 27(4):309–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A et al (1996) The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med 334(9):567–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadalti M, Severi FM et al (2003) Prediction of successful induction of labor at term: role of clinical history, digital examination, ultrasound assessment of the cervix, and fetal fibronectin assay. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(5):1361–1367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC (2001) Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 98(1):2–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boozarjomehri F, Timor-Tritsch I, Chao CR, Fox HE (1994) Transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix before labor: presence of cervical wedging is associated with shorter duration of induced labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 171(4):1081–1087PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D (1996) Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 88(6):990–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH (2001) Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(6):623–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware V, Raynor BD (2000) Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(5):1030–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Hessabi M (2000) Comparison of the Bishop score, ultrasonographically measured cervical length, and fetal fibronectin assay in predicting time until delivery and type of delivery at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(1 Pt 1):108–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vankayalapati P, Sethna F, Roberts N, Ngeh N, Thilaganathan B, Bhide A (2008) Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: prediction of spontaneous onset of labor and successful vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(3):328–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramanathan G, Yu C, Osei E, Nicolaides KH (2003) Ultrasound examination at 37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of pregnancy outcome: the value of cervical assessment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22(6):598–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yanik A, Gulumser C, Tosun M (2007) Ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length in predicting mode of delivery after oxytocin induction. Adv Ther 24(4):748–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elghorori MR, Hassan I, Dartey W, Abdel-Aziz E, Bradley M (2006) Comparison between subjective and objective assessments of the cervix before induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 26(6):521–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ (1992) The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 79(2):214–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holcomb WL Jr, Smeltzer JS (1991) Cervical effacement: variation in belief among clinicians. Obstet Gynecol 78(1):43–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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(2):172–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andersen HF (1991) Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 19(2):77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N, Antsaklis A (2006) Sonographic cervical length measurement before labor induction in term nulliparous women. Fetal Diagn Ther 21(1):34–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C (2002) Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19(3):254–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad A. Grotegut
    • 1
  • Mordechai Dulitzki
    • 2
  • John P. Gaughan
    • 3
  • Reuven Achiron
    • 2
  • Eyal Schiff
    • 2
  • Ossie Geifman-Holtzman
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Maternal-Fetal MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical CenterTel-Aviv UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsTemple University School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Division of Maternal-Fetal MedicineDrexel University College of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Fels Institute for Cancer Research & Molecular Biology and Department of BiochemistryTemple University School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations