Reliability of Two-Dimensional Transvaginal Sonographic Measurement of Lower Uterine Segment Thickness Using Video Sequences

Abstract

Objectives To report the intra- and interobserver reliability of measurement of the lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness using transvaginal sonographic videos.

Methods A prospective study of 60 women with previous, low-transverse cesarean undergoing LUS examination (36 to 39 weeks) was performed. Two observers independently measured full LUS thickness using transvaginal sonography. A video of the LUS was recorded and analyzed more than 2 months later by both observers. Intra- and interobserver reliability was assessed with median absolute differences and interquartile range (IQR), nonparametric limits of agreement, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and kappa coefficients.

Results Median full LUS thickness was 3.6 mm (range: 0.9 to 8.0 mm). Intraobserver repeatability was excellent (median difference: 0.2 mm, IQR: 0.1 to 0.4; ICC: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.96; kappa: 1.00). Interobserver (median difference: 0.3 mm, IQR: 0.2 to 1.3; ICC: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.95; kappa: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.98) and intermethod reproducibility (median difference: 0.4 mm, IQR: 0.2 to 0.8; ICC: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.89; kappa: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.94) were good. However, both interobserver and intermethod reproducibility were improved when LUS thickness was below 3 mm.

Conclusion Full LUS thickness measured from transvaginal sonographic videos has excellent intra- and interobserver reproducibility and good reproducibility with live transvaginal ultrasound.

Keywords

pregnancy - ultrasound - cesarean - lower uterine segment - intraobserver agreement - interobserver agreement - intermethod agreement - reliability - two-dimensional ultrasound

• References

• 1 Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 3-8
• 2 Chauhan SP, Martin Jr JN, Henrichs CE, Morrison JC, Magann EF. Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 408-417
• 3 Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2581-2589
• 4 Rossi AC, D'Addario V. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 224-231
• 5 Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 311-314
• 6 Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BKS, Helfand M. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ 2004; 329: 19-25
• 7 Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB , et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Prediction of uterine rupture associated with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 30 , e1–e5
• 8 Macones GA, Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo A, Peipert J, Stevens EJ. Can uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery be predicted?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1148-1152
• 9 Fukuda M, Fukuda K, Mochizuki M. Examination of previous caesarean section scars by ultrasound. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1988; 243: 221-224
• 10 Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347: 281-284
• 11 Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, Yoshimura S, Miyamura T, Ishimaru T. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 596-600
• 12 Cheung VY, Constantinescu OC, Ahluwalia BS. Sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment in patients with previous cesarean delivery. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 1441-1447
• 13 Sen S, Malik S, Salhan S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment thickness in patients of previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 87: 215-219
• 14 Cheung VY. Sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27: 674-681
• 15 Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 320 , e1–e6
• 16 Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32: 321-327
• 17 Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R, Irion O, Boulvain M. Inter- and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 420-424
• 18 Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FMP, Nastri CO, Filho FM. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 301-306
• 19 Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 1998; 17: 101-110
• 20 Giraudeau B, Mary JY. Planning a reproducibility study: how many subjects and how many replicates per subject for an expected width of the 95 per cent confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient. Stat Med 2001; 20: 3205-3214
• 21 Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 135-160
• 22 Shoukri MM. Measures of Interobserver Agreement. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2004
• 23 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20: 37-46
• 24 Yagel S, Cohen SM, Rosenak D , et al. Added value of three-/four-dimensional ultrasound in offline analysis and diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 432-437
• 25 Cheung VYT, Yang F, Leung KY. 2D versus 3D transabdominal sonography for the measurement of lower uterine segment thickness in women with previous cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 114: 234-237