Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2020 Aug 21:12:649-656.
doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S251522. eCollection 2020.

The Comparative Study of Cervical Shear Wave Elastography Between Twin and Singleton Pregnancy

Sanpon Diawtipsukon  1 , Sommart Bumrungphuet  1 , Wirada Dulyaphat  1 , Panyu Panburana  1
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

The Comparative Study of Cervical Shear Wave Elastography Between Twin and Singleton Pregnancy

Sanpon Diawtipsukon et al. Int J Womens Health. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare the cervical shear wave elastography (SWE) by using transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) between twin and singleton pregnant women.

Materials and methods: This was a prospective cohort study involving the twin and singleton pregnant women who attended the antenatal care at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. The participants who met the inclusion criteria were serially measured the shear wave speed (SWS) by using TVS at early, mid-, and third trimester. The changes in SWS with advancing gestational age between twin and singleton pregnancies were evaluated. The gestational age at delivery and spontaneous preterm delivery rate were also analyzed.

Results: A total of 36 twin pregnancies and 38 singleton pregnancies were analyzed. No significant difference in baseline characteristics, except the age of participants (twin pregnancies 33.1±4.6 years, singleton pregnancies 29.9±5.4 years, p-value = 0.006) was observed. The cervical SWS decreased with advancing gestational age in both twin and singleton pregnancy, but there was a statistically significant difference of cervical SWS at the lower point in mid-trimester (twin pregnancies 2.27±0.4, singleton pregnancies 2.71±0.6 m/s, p-value = 0.001). However, no significant difference in cervical SWS at the upper point and the lower point in the early and third trimester was demonstrated. Even though the gestational age at delivery between both groups revealed a significant difference (twin pregnancies 35.9±2.8, singleton pregnancies 37.6±2.9 wk., p-value = 0.008) but the spontaneous preterm delivery rate did not differ significantly (twin pregnancies 22.2%, singleton pregnancies 15.8%, p-value = 0.483).

Conclusion: The mid-trimester cervical SWS measurement at the lower point detects the difference in cervical softness between twin pregnancies and singleton pregnancies. The cervical SWS might be an additional option for monitoring the change in cervical softness in twin pregnancies.

Keywords: cervical shear wave; cervical softness; shear wave elastography; shear wave speed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest for this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Measurement of ultrasound shear wave speed. Left circle, the region of interest (ROI) of the upper point, right circle, ROI of the lower point. The diameter of the target regions of interest was set to 5 mm.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic diagram of a twin view for measurement sites. A(left): elastographic map, B(right): grey-scale B mode that the measurement was done at the anterior lip of cervix 7.5 mm (lower point) and 17.5 mm (upper point) from the external cervical os.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Participant eligibility diagram.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Regression line of the mean SWS and 95% confidence interval of the lower point (A) and upper point (B).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kogan MD, Alexander GR, Kotelchunk M, et al. Trends in twin birth outcomes and prenatal care utilization in the United States, 19811997. JAMA. 2000;284:335–341. doi:10.1001/jama.284.3.335 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ananth CV, Kirby RS, Vintzileos AM. Recurrence of preterm birth in twin pregnancies in the presence of a prior singleton preterm birth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;21:289–295. doi:10.1080/14767050802010206 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Golddenberg RL, Iams JD, Miodovnik M, et al. The preterm prediction study: risk factors in twin gestations. National institute of child health and human development maternal-fetal medicine units network. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)80051-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gravett MG, Rubens CE, Nunes TM. GAPPS Review Group. Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (2 of 7): discovery science. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10(Suppl 1):S2. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-10-S1-S2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McIntosh J, Feltovich H, Berghella V, Manuck T. Society of maternal-fetal medicine. The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:B27. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.027 - DOI - PubMed