K.V. YANAKOVA, M.G. TUKHBATULLIN

Kazan State Medical Academy ― branch of Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, 36 Butlerov Str., Kazan, Russian Federation, 420012

 Yanakova K.V. ― postgraduate student of the Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics, tel. +7-905-377-11-69, e-mail: kyanakova80@gmail.com

Tukhbatullin M.G. ― D. Med. Sc., Professor, Head of the Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics, tel. +7-900-326-20-03, e-mail: Munir.Tuhbatullin@tatar.ru

The results of cervical elastography of 420 pregnant women with high-risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities during first trimester of pregnancy (11-13+6 weeks) are presented in this article. In 177 pregnant women cervical elasticity was assessed via Real-Time Elastography, and in 243 pregnant women cervical elasticity was assessed with the help of Shear Wave Elastography. Pregnant women were distributed between 2 groups: in the first one there were 177 women the cervical elasticity of which was assessed via real-time elastography, an in the second group, there were 243 women, the cervical elasticity of which was assessed via shear-wave elastography. Due to the high-risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities defined on the stage of early combined prenatal screening all women underwent invasive diagnostics with further karyotyping, as a result of which in 53 of them there were revealed abnormal fetal karyotype (21 in the first and 32 in the second group). Real-time elastography was performed via ultrasound system Accuvix XG (Madison, Korea) with the installed modulus Elastoscan^®. Shear wave elastography was carried out on the ultrasound machine Aixplorer^®, manufactured by the company Super Sonic Imagine (France). The research showed that assessment of uterine stiffness during first trimester of pregnancy with real-time ultrasound elastoography is 90.48% more sensitive and 76.28% more specific, while the shear wave ultrasound elastography has a sensitivity of 84.4% and a still higher specificity (96.7 %) at NPV=97.6% for predicting the risk of miscarriage in women with high risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Key words: cervix, risk of miscarriage, real-time elastography, shear wave elastography.

REFERENCES

1. Tsoi E., Akmal S., Rane S. et al. Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol, 2003, vol. 21, pp. 552-555.
2. Choi T.Y., Lee H.M., Park W.Y. et al. Spontaneous abortion and recurrent miscarriage: A comparison of cytogenetic diagnosis in 250 cases. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci, 2014, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 518-525.
3. Souka A.P., Papastefanou I., Michalitsi V. A predictive model of short cervix at 20-24 weeks using first-trimester cervical length measurement and maternal history. Prenat. Diagn, 2011, vol. 31, pp. 202-206.
4. Tobechukwu M.T. , Ose-Emenim I.B., Ehinwenma O. Sonographic evaluation of uterine cervical dimension within 4-24 weeks of pregnancy. Nigerian J. of Clinical Practice, 2011, vol. 4 (14), pp. 400-404.
5. Slager J., Lynne S. Assessment of cervical length and the relationship between short cervix and preterm birth. J. Midwifery. Womens. Health, 2012, suppl. 1, vol. 57, pp. 4-11.
6. Word R.A., Li X.H., Hnat M., Carrick K. Dynamics of cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: mechanisms and current concepts. Sem. Reprod. Med, 2007, vol. 1 (25), pp. 69-79.
7. Danforth D. The morphology of the human cervix. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol, 1983, vol. 1 (26), rr. 7-13.
8. Harkness M.L., Harkness R.D. Changes in the physical properties of the uterine cervix of the rat during pregnancy. J. of Physiology, 1959, vol. 148, rr. 527-547.
9. Read C.P., Word R.A., Ruscheinsky M.A. et al. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: molecular characterization of the softening phase in mice. Reproduction, 2007, vol. 134, rr. 327-340.
10. Ophir J., Cespedes I., Ponnekanti H. et al. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason. Imag, 1991, vol. 13, rr. 111-134.
11. Degani Sh., Leibovitz Z., Shapiro I. et al. Myometrial Thickness in Pregnancy: Longitudinal Sonographic Study. J. Ultrasound. Med, 1998, vol. 17, rr. 661-665.
12. Mazza E., Parra-Saavedra M., Bajka M. et al. In vivo assessment of the biochemical properties of the uterine cervix in pregnancy. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2014, 34, pp. 33-41.
13. Myers K., Ateshian G.A. Interstitial Growth and Remodeling of Biological Tissues: Tissue Composition as State Variables. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater, 2014, vol. 29, pp. 544-556.
14. Vargis E., Brown N., Williams K. et al. Detecting biochemical changes in he rodent cervix during pregnancy using Raman spectroscopy. Ann. Biomed. Eng, 2012, vol. 40, pp. 1814-1824.
15. Myers K., Socrate S., Tzeranis D., House M. Changes in the biochemical constituents and morphologic appearance of the human cervical stroma during pregnancy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol, 2009, vol. 144 (suppl 1), rr. S82-S89.
16. Winkler M., Rath W. Changes in the cervical extracellular matrix during pregnancy and parturition. J. Perinat. Med, 1999, vol. 27, pp. 45-61.
17. Timmons B., Akins M., Mahendroo M. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition. Trends. Endocrin Metabolism, 2010, vol. 6 (21), pp. 353-361.
18. Parra-Saavedra M., Gomez L., Barrero A., et al. Prediction of preterm birth using the cervical consistency index. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol, 2011, vol. 38, pp. 44-51.
19. O’Connell M.P., Avis N.J., Brown B.H. et al. Electrical impedance measurements: an objective measure of prelabor cervical change. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med, 2003, vol. 14 (6), pp. 389-391.
20. Maul H., Mackay L., Garfield R. Cervical ripening: biochemical, molecular, and clinical considerations. Clin. Obstet&Gynecol, 2006, vol. 49, pp. 70-76.
21. Thomas A. Imaging of the cervix using sonoelastography. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol, 2006, vol. 28, pp. 356-357.
22. Swiatkowska-Freund M., Preis K. Elastography of the uterine cervix: implications for success of induction of labor. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol, 2011, vol. 38, pp. 52-56.
23. Yamaguchi S., Kamei Y., Kozuma S. et al. Tissue elastography imaging of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J. Med. Ultrasonics, 2007, vol. 39, pp. 209-210.
24. Khalil M.R., Thorsen P., Uldbjerg N. Cervical ultrasound elastography may hold potential to predict risk of preterm birth. Dan. Med. J, 2013, vol. 60, rr. A4570.
25. Molina F.S., Gómez L.F., Florido J. et al. Quantification of cervical elastography: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol, 2012, vol. 39, rr. 685-689.
26. Fruscalzo A., Schmitz R., Klockenbusch W., Steinhard J. Reliability of cervix elastography in the late first and second trimester of pregnancy. Ultraschall Med, 2012, vol. 7 (33), rr. E101-E107.
27. Sananes N., Langer B., Gaudineau A. et al. Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in singleton pregnancies: where are we and where are we going? A review of literature. J. Obstet. Gynaecol, 2014, vol. 6 (34), pp. 457-461.
28. Sabiani L., Haumonte J.B., Loundou A. et al. Cervical HI-RTE elastography and pregnancy outcome: a prospective study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod Biol, 2015, vol. 186, pp. 80-84.