Pitfalls in ultrasonic determination of total intrauterine volume

Grossman, Michael; Flynn, John J.; Aufrichtig, D; Handler, Curtis R.

doi:10.1002/jcu.1870100104

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It could be reasonably spec ulated that there would be a higher correlation coefficient (above 0.93) between the ultrasonic volume in vivo and actual in vivo weight. Small variations due to technical error during ultra sonic measurement of the uterine dimensional axes will result in significant difference of the calculated uterine volume based on prolate ellipsoid geometric formula [5]. An issue of debate has existed in choosing which is the most reliable scanning method to define the length, width and anteroposterior diameter [2,7], In our study, the length was determined by measuring from the cervix to the dome of the fundus or mass; the width and anteropos terior diameter were taken from the largest cross-sectional view in the same imaging plane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No doubt, as we have thought, a close and positive correlation exists between ultrasound-measured, geometrically calculated uterine volume and actual weight. Although there was an unavoidable limitation in the accuracy of ultrasonic eval uation of uterine volume because of the great variability of uterine shape [5], a simple mathematic equation could be obtained by using linear regression analysis from the given volume of each uterus and its corresponding weight.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Relationship between Ultrasonic Volume and Actual Weight of Pathologic Uterus

Kung

Chang²

1996

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our purpose was to assess the correlation between the estimated volume based on ultrasonic measurement in vivo and the actual weight of the diseased uterus after hysterectomy, and then retrospectively tried to establish a simple equation to convert the volume into the weight in grams. A total of 105 women with nonmalignant diseased uteri which were prepared to undergo laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy had had preoperative ultrasound scanning to estimate the uterine size by measuring three dimensions including the length (L), width (W) and anteroposterior (AP) diameter. The uterine volume was calculated by the use of a prolate ellipsoid formula (4/3 × ∏ × L/2 × W/2 × AP/2). Actual uterine weight was immediately taken after extirpation of the uterus. Linear regression analysis revealed uterine weight (g) = 50.0 + 0.71 × volume (cm³), with correlation coefficient = 0.93 and SE = 49.6 g. There was a close, positive correlation between the estimated uterine volume and actual uterine weight. With utilization of this equation, the uterine size in vivo can thus be expressed as a concrete, objective value in weight instead of ‘weeks’ size’ by comparison with pregnant uterus, which has been commonly used in traditional gynecologic practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Ultrasonic Volume and Actual Weight of Pathologic Uterus

Kung

Chang²

1996

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was measured using the Prolate Ellipsoid (PE) method where volume is equal to the product of the length (), the transverse diameter (), the anterior-posterior diameter () of the uterus and a constant (). Some authors [11], [12] attributed the inaccuracies of the PE method to distension of the urinary bladder and poor visualization of the uterine outline. In this study the bladder was emptied and the Freestyle™ extended imaging capability of the ultrasound machine provided clear and distinct visualization of the uterine margins.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Uterine Wall Tension Trajectories and the Onset of Parturition

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uterine wall tension is thought to be an important determinant of the onset of labor in pregnant women. We characterize human uterine wall tension using ultrasound from the second trimester of pregnancy until parturition and compare preterm, term and twin pregnancies. A total of 320 pregnant women were followed from first antenatal visit to delivery during the period 2000–2004 at the John Hunter Hospital, NSW, Australia. The uterine wall thickness, length, anterior-posterior diameter and transverse diameter were determined by serial ultrasounds. Subjects were divided into three groups: women with singleton pregnancies and spontaneous labor onset, either preterm or term and women with twin pregnancies. Intrauterine pressure results from the literature were combined with our data to form trajectories for uterine wall thickness, volume and tension for each woman using the prolate ellipsoid method and the groups were compared at 20, 25 and 30 weeks gestation. Uterine wall tension followed an exponential curve, with results increasing throughout pregnancy with the site of maximum tension on the anterior wall. For those delivering preterm, uterine wall thickness was increased compared with term. For twin pregnancies intrauterine volume was increased compared to singletons (), but wall thickness was not. There was no evidence for increased tension in those delivering preterm or those with twin gestations. These data are not consistent with a role for high uterine wall tension as a causal factor in preterm spontaneous labor in singleton or twin gestations. It seems likely that hormonal differences in multiple gestations are responsible for increased rates of preterm birth in this group rather than increased tension.

show abstract

“…These drawbacks have been quantitatively emphasized (10,71 ,I). Technical precision is required and substantial error can be introduced by inclusion or non-inclusion of the uterine wall, by differing degree of bladder fullness, uterine contractions, selection of measurement planes and most importantly, uterine shape (71). The poor accuracy of the PE method was shown in the present study (I).…”

Section: Late Pregnancy Volumementioning

confidence: 59%

Intrauterine Volume in Pregnancy: Thesis for the degree of Doctor medicinae, University of Iceland 1986

Geirsson¹

1986

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pitfalls in ultrasonic determination of total intrauterine volume

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

The Relationship between Ultrasonic Volume and Actual Weight of Pathologic Uterus

The Relationship between Ultrasonic Volume and Actual Weight of Pathologic Uterus

Human Uterine Wall Tension Trajectories and the Onset of Parturition

Intrauterine Volume in Pregnancy: Thesis for the degree of Doctor medicinae, University of Iceland 1986

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About