Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Cervical Length in Labor and Delivery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management

Abstract

Transvaginal ultrasound cervical length assessment (TVU CL) has been reported to be the major predictor of spontaneous PTB as both a screening and a diagnostic tool. The knowledge of cervical length in women with threatened preterm labor is useful for supporting the diagnosis of true preterm labor and for guiding the obstetrician toward the proper management, with significant lower incidence of PTB and later gestational age at delivery. In case of PPROM and placenta previa, TVU CL has been shown to be a safe procedure and a good predictor of delivery latency and emergency delivery for antepartum bleeding, respectively, but there is still insufficient data to recommend routine TVU CL in these subset of women. TVU CL role in predicting delivery outcomes is similar to the Bishop score in case of IOL, and it is better tolerated than digital examination. TVU CL has also a good accuracy in predicting the onset of spontaneous labor in women at term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 171: Management of Preterm Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:e155. (Reaffirmed 2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Births in the United States. NCHS Data Brief, no 346. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2018. p. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  3. March of Dimes, PMNCH, Save the Children, WHO. In: Howson CP, Kinney MV, Lawn JE, editors. Born too soon: the global action report on preterm birth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hackney DN, Olson-Chen C, Thomberg L. What do we know above the natural outcomes of preterm labour? A systematic review and meta-analysis of women without tocolysis in preterm labour. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27:452–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McIntosh J, Feltovich H, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), et al. The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:B2–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sotiriadis A, Papatheodorou S, Kavvadias A, Makrydimas G. Transvaginal cervical length measurement for prediction of preterm birth in women with threatened preterm labor: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:54–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berghella V, Palacio M, Ness A, Alfirevic Z, Nicolaides KH, Saccone G. Cervical length screening for prevention of preterm birth in singleton pregnancy with threatened preterm labor: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using individual patient-level data. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:322–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Phelps JY, Higby K, Smyth MH, Ward JA, Arredondo F, Mayer AR. Accuracy and intraobserver variability of simulated cervical dilatation measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:942–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, Mazor M, Sorokin Y, Goncalves L, et al. Ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix is better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:956–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iams JD, Paraskos J, Landon MB, Teteris JN, Johnson FF. Cervical sonography in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:40–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crane JM, Van den Hof M, Armson BA, Liston R. Transvaginal ultrasound in the prediction of preterm delivery: singleton and twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:357–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Khalifeh A, Berghella V. Not transabdominal! Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:739–44. e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berghella V, Bega G, Tolsa JE, Berghella M. Ultrasound assessment of the cervix. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;46:947–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murakawa H, Utumi T, Hasegawa I, Tanaka K, Fuzimori R. Evaluation of threatened preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(5):829–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jams JD, Paraskos J, Landon MB, Teteris JN, Johnson FF. Cervical sonography in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(1):40–6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, Mazor M, Sorokin Y, Goncalves L, et al. Ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix is better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:956–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Timor-Tritsch IE, Boozarjomehri F, Masakowski Y, Monteagudo A, Chao CR. Can a “snapshot” sagittal view of the cervix by transvaginal ultrasonography predict active preterm labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(3):990–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rizzo G, Capponi A, Arduini D, Lorido C, Romanini C. The value of fetal fibronectin in cervical and vaginal secretions and of ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix in predicting premature delivery for patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(5):1146–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Malagrida L, Giudicelli Y, Perdu M, Houssin I, et al. Evaluating the risk of preterm delivery: a comparison of fetal fibronectin and transvaginal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(1 Pt 1):196–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vendittelli F, Mamelle N, Munoz F, Janky E. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix in hospitalized women with preterm labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;72(2):117–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tekesin I, Hellmeyer L, Heller G, Romer A, Kuhnert M, Schmidt S. Evaluation of quantitative ultrasound tissue characterization of the cervix and cervical length in the prediction of premature delivery for patients with spontaneous preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(2):532–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsoi E, Akmal S, Rane S, Otigbah C, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(6):552–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuchs IB, Henrich W, Osthues K, Dudenhausen JW. Sonographic cervical length in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes presenting with threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(5):554–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Volumenie JL, Luton D, De Spirlet M, Sibony O, Blot P, Oury JF. Ultrasonographic cervical length measurement is not a better predictor of preterm delivery than digital examination in a population of patients with idiopathic preterm labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117(1):33–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsoi E, Fuchs IB, Rane S, Geerts L, Nicolaides KH. Sonographic measurement of cervical length in threatened preterm labor in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(4):353–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomez R, Romero R, Nien JK, Chaiworapongsa T, Medina L, Kim YM, et al. A short cervix in women with preterm labor and intact membranes: a risk factor for microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):678–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Daskalakis G, Thomakos N, Hatziioannou L, Mesogitis S, Papantoniou N, Antsaldis A. Cervical assessment in women with threatened preterm labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;17(5):309–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jenkins SM, Kurtzman JT, Osann K. Dynamic cervical change: is real-time sonographic cervical shortening predictive of preterm delivery in patients with symptoms of preterm labor? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(4):373–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoist RM, Jacobsson B, Hagberg H, Wennerholm UB. Cervical length in women in preterm labor with intact membranes: relationship to intra-amniotic inflammation/microbial invasion, cervical inflammation and preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28(6):768–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Palacio M, Sanin-Blair J, Sanchez M, Crispi F, Gomez O, Carreras E, et al. The use of a variable cut-off value of cervical length in women admitted for pre-term labor before and after 32 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(4):421–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gramellini D, Fieni S, Kaihura C, Modena AB. Cervical length as a predictor of preterm delivery: gestational age-related percentiles vs fixed cut-offs. Acta Biomed. 2007;78(3):220–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alfirevic Z, Allen-Coward H, Molina F, Vinuesa CP, Nicolaides K. Targeted therapy for threatened preterm labor based on sonographic measurement of the cervical length: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(1):47–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schmitz T, Kayem G, Maillard F, Lebret MT, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Selective use of sonographic cervical length measurement for predicting imminent preterm delivery in women with preterm labor and intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(4):421–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Adhikari K, Bagga R, Suri V, Takhtani M. Cervical length compared to Bishop’s score for prediction of pre-term birth in women with pre-term labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(3):213–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Honest H, Bachmann LM, Gupta JK, Kleijnen J, Khan KS. Accuracy of cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin test in predicting risk of spontaneous preterm birth: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325:301–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Berghella V, Saccone G. Fetal fibronectin testing for prevention of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies with threatened preterm labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:431.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ness A, Visintine J, Ricci E, Berghella V. Does knowledge of cervical length and fetal fibronectin affect management of women with threatened preterm labor? A randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(426):e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Van Baaren GJ, Vis JY, Wilms FF, Oudijk MA, Kwee A, Porath MM, et al. Predictive value of cervical length measurement and fibronectin testing in threatened preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gomez R, Romero R, Medina L, Nien JK, Chaiworapongsa T, Carstens M, et al. Cervicovaginal fibronectin improves the prediction of preterm delivery based on sonographic cervical length in patients with preterm uterine contractions and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:350.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 130: prediction and prevention of preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:964. Reaffirmed 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, McIntosh J, Feltovich H, et al. The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:B2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Foster C, Shennan AH. Fetal fibronectin as a biomarker of preterm labor: a review of the literature and advances in its clinical use. Biomark Med. 2014;8:471–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kuba K, Bernstein PS. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 188: Prelabor rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:1163–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Peaceman AM, Lai Y, Rouse DJ, Spong CY, Mercer BM, Varner MW, et al. Length of latency with preterm premature rupture of membranes before 32 weeks’ gestation. Am J Perinatol. 2015;32:57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schucker JL, Mercer BM. Midtrimester premature rupture of the membranes. Semin Perinatol. 1996;20:389–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lorthe E, Ancel PY, Torchin H, Kaminski M, Langer B, Subtil D, et al. Impact of latency duration on the prognosis of preterm infants after preterm premature rupture of membranes at 24 to 32 weeks’ gestation: a national population-based cohort study. J Pediatr. 2017;182:47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Frenette P, Dodds L, Armson BA, Jangaard K. Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes: effect of latency on neonatal and maternal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:710–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nelson LH, Anderson RL, O’Shea TM, Swain M. Expectant management of preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:350–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Alexander JM, Mercer BM, Miodovnik M, Thurnau GR, Goldenberg RL, Das AF, et al. The impact of digital cervical examination on expectantly managed preterm rupture of membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mehra S, Amon E, Hopkins S, Gavard JA, Shyken J. Transvaginal cervical length and amniotic fluid index: can it predict delivery latency following preterm premature rupture of membranes? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:400. e1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee SM, Park KH, Jung EY, Jang JA, Yoo HN. Frequency and clinical significance of short cervix in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0174657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Rizzo G, Capponi A, Angelini E, Vlachopoulou A, Grassi C, Romanini C. The value of transvaginal ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix in predicting preterm delivery in patients with preterm premature rupture of membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;11:23–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) consult series #44: management of bleeding in the late preterm period. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:B2–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fan D, Wu S, Liu L, Xia Q, Wang W, Guo X, et al. Prevalence of antepartum hemorrhage in women with placenta previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Fan D, Xia Q, Liu L, Wu S, Tian G, Wang W, et al. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage in pregnant women with placenta previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0170194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zaitoun MM, El Behery MM, Abd El Hameed AA, Soliman BS. Does cervical length and the lower placental edge thickness measurement correlate with clinical outcome in cases of complete placenta previa? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:867.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ghi T, Contro E, Martina T, Piva M, Morandi R, Orsini LF, et al. Cervical length and risk of antepartum bleeding in women with complete placenta previa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:209–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Stafford IA, Dashe JS, Shivvers SA, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Ultrasonographic cervical length and risk of hemorrhage in pregnancies with placenta previa. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, van der Post JA, Pajkrt E, Opmeer BC, et al. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:625–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:805–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Verhoeven CJ, Opmeer BC, Oei SG, Latour V, Van der Post JA, Mol BW. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length and wedging for predicting outcome of labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:500–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length vs. Bishop score in labor induction at term: tolerability and prediction of Cesarean delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:568–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, Jeong EH, Jung HJ, Oh KJ. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in pre-induction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:198–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bartha JL, Romero-Carmona R, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for pre-induction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:155–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015:CD010762.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Saccone G, Simonetti B, Berghella V. Transvaginal ultrasound cervical length for prediction of spontaneous labour at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123:16–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Chandra S, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Transvaginal ultrasound and digital examination in predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(1):2–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Reis FM, Gervasi MT, Florio P, Bracalente G, Fadalti M, Seven FM, et al. 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. 2003;189(5):1361–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Roman H, Verspyck E, Vercoustre L, Degre S, Col JY, Firmin JM et at (2004) Does ultrasound examination when the cervix is unfavorable improve the prediction of failed labor induction? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23(4):357-362

    Google Scholar 

  71. Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM, Edmonds DK, Rodeck CH. Preinduction cervical assessment by Bishop’s score and transvaginal ultrasound. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991;40(1):17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ware V, Raynor BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(5):1030–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Pandis GK, Papageorghiou AT, Ramanathan VG, Thompson MO, Nicolaides KH. Preinduction sonographic measurement of cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(6):623–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Gabriel R, Darnaud T, Chalot F, Gonzalez N, Leymarie F, Quereux C. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(3):254–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Yang SH, Roh CR, Kim JH. Transvaginal ultrasonography for cervical assessment before induction of labor. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(3):375–82. quiz 384-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(5):538–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Van Holsbeke C, Van Der Tweel I, Stoutenbeek P, Visser GH. Sonographic longitudinal cervical length measurements in nulliparous women at term: prediction of spontaneous onset of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(5):652–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Hessabi M. 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. 2000;182(1 Pt 1):108–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Vankayalapati P, Sethna F, Roberts N, Ngeh N, Thilaganathan B, Bhide A. Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in prolonged pregnancy: prediction of spontaneous onset of labor and successful vaginal delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(3):328–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maternal, Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Daniele Di Mascio

  2. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Daniele Di Mascio

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre for Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Gian Carlo Di Renzo

  4. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Vincenzo Berghella

Authors
  1. Daniele Di Mascio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gian Carlo Di Renzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincenzo Berghella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Berghella .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Santa Maria Hospital, GVM Care and Research, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Malvasi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Di Mascio, D., Di Renzo, G.C., Berghella, V. (2021). Use of Cervical Length in Labor and Delivery. In: Malvasi, A. (eds) Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57594-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57595-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation