Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 285, Issue 1, pp 255–258 | Cite as

Cervical gland area: a new sonographic marker in predicting preterm delivery

  • Nargess Afzali
  • Marzieh Mohajeri
  • Abdolreza Malek
  • Atefeh Alamatian
Reproductive Medicine



Preterm delivery is one of the important causes of morbidity and mortality in newborns. Nowadays, a new sonographic marker is suggested for prediction of preterm delivery which is termed “Cervical Gland Area” (CGA). Absence of normal mucosal glands of the cervix can be utilized as a predictor in preterm delivery. This study was performed to evaluate the role of absence of CGA for the prediction of preterm delivery <37 weeks.


Trans-vaginal ultrasonography was performed on 600 pregnant women at 16–19 weeks of gestational age. Cervical gland area and cervical length were evaluated. Women with cervical length <25 mm were conducted to cerclage and excluded from the study. Age, number of pregnancies and history of previous preterm deliveries were recorded in questionnaires. The date of delivery was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by version 18 SPSS and P value <0.05 was significant.


Spontaneous preterm delivery was seen in 6.7% of all women. There was no significant difference in age, cervical length, the number of pregnancies and history of previous preterm deliveries between term pregnancies and preterm cases. CGA was detected in 77.1% of term pregnancies comparing with 55% in preterm group; which was significantly different (P value = 0.002).


Non detection of CGA at second trimester ultrasonography is a predictor of preterm delivery.


Cervical gland Area Preterm delivery Ultrasound Cervical insufficiency 


Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest regarding the article.


  1. 1.
    Canry C, Gibbs RS (2008) Preterm labor and postterm delivery. In: Gibbs RS (ed) Danforths obstetrics and gynecology. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 165–186Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hassan SA, Romero R, Berry SM, Dang K, Blackwell SC, Treawell MC, Wolfe HM (2000) Patients with an ultrsonographic cervical length <15 mm have nearly a 50% risk of early spontaneous preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1458–1467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawal A, Das A, Thom E, McNellis D, Copper RL, Johnson F, Roberts JM (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 Eng J Med 334:567–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varma TR, Patel RH, Pillai U (1986) Ultrasound assessment of the cervix in “at risk” patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 65:147–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Podonik K, Bulic M, Smiljanic N, Bistricki J (1988) Ultrasonography in the detection of cervical incompetency. J Clin Ultrasound 13:383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Owen J, Yost N, Berghella V (2001) Mid-trimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. JAMA 286:1340–1350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sekiya T, Ishihara K, Yoshimatsu K (1998) Detection rate of the cervical gland area during pregnancy by transvaginal sonography in the assessment of cervical maturation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 12:328–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fukami T, Ishihara K, Sekiya T, Araki T (2003) Is transvaginal ultrasonography at mid-trimester useful for predicting early spontaneous preterm birth? J Nippon Med Sch 70:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guzman ER, Walters C, Ananth CV, O’Reilly-green C, Benito CW, Palermo A, Vintzileos AM (2001) A comparison of sonographic cervical parameters in predicting spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk singleton gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18:204–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moron AF, Mattor R, Diniz ALD, Andrade SGA, Bussamra LCS (2006) Cervical gland area as an ultrasonographic marker for preterm delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 93:214–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grgic O, Matijevic R, Vasilj O (2005) Qualitative glandular cervical score as potential new sonomorphological parameter in screening for preterm delivery. Am J obstet and Gynecol 32:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asakura H, Fukami T, Kurashina R, Tateyama N, Doi D, Takeshita T (2009) Significance of cervical gland area in predicting preterm birth for patients with threatened preterm delivery: comparison with cervical length and fetal fibronectin. Gynecol Obstet Invest 68:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Topkins P (1949) Histologic appearance of endocervix during menstrual cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol 58:654–663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fluhmann CF, Dickmann Z (1958) The basic pattern of the glandular structures of the cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol 11:543–555PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoshimatsu K, Sekiya T, Ishihara K, Fukami T, Otabe T, Araki T (2002) Detection of the cervical gland area in threatened preterm labor using transvaginal sonography in the assessment of cervical maturation and the outcome of pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 53:149–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nargess Afzali
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marzieh Mohajeri
    • 3
  • Abdolreza Malek
    • 4
  • Atefeh Alamatian
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineIslamic Azad University-Mashhad BranchMashhadIran
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMashhadIran
  3. 3.Department of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Faculty of MedicineIslamic Azad University-Mashhad BranchMashhadIran
  4. 4.Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of MedicineIslamic Azad University-Mashhad BranchMashhadIran
  5. 5.School of MedicineIslamic Azad University-Mashhad BranchMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations