Influence of water intake on the waiting time prior to gynecologic transabdominal ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of volume of water intake on the length of time before the bladder is sufficiently full prior to undergoing transabdominal ultrasound. METHODS: Ninety-three patients scheduled for transabdominal ultrasound were enrolled between November 2007 and April 2008 and randomly allocated to 3 study groups by volume of water intake: 300, 400, and 500 mL. The total waiting time was recorded when the bladder was sufficiently full to undergo transabdominal ultrasound. The final bladder volume was measured using three-dimensional ultrasound. RESULTS: Mean waiting times were 68.65+/-30.12 min, 64.2+/-26.18 min, and 54.38+/-12.75 min for patients ingesting 300, 400, and 500 mL of water, respectively (P=0.060). The final bladder volumes for the 3 groups were not statistically different (263.06+/-99.21 mL, 275.37+/-113.05 ml, and 316.17+/-101.31 mL; P=0.113). CONCLUSION: Differences in the volume of water ingested in the range of 300-500 mL did not affect the waiting time before undergoing transabdominal ultrasound.

Correlation of uterine cervical length measurement from transabdominal, transperineal and transvaginal ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of transperineal ultrasonography for uterine cervical assessment by determining the correlation of uterine cervical length measurement from transabdominal, transperineal and transvaginal ultrasonography and comparing discomfort arising from each technique. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Fifty pregnant women of 37 weeks' gestation or later who gave consent participated in this research. They had no exclusion criteria, which were listed as the following: preterm premature rupture of membranes, previous cervical surgery, undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, and true labor pain. They all underwent transabdominal (3.5-MHz curvilinear transducer), transperineal (3.5-MHz curvilinear transducer) and transvaginal ultrasonography (7.5-MHz curvilinear endovaginal transducer). The uterine cervical length was measured from the straight line between the external and internal os. If either of the external or internal os was not clearly demonstrated, the authors would justify the cervical length as non-measurable. Measurement in each technique was performed twice and the mean cervical length was used for data analysis. Discomfort arising from each technique was evaluated by visual analog scale. RESULTS: Uterine cervical length was measurable in 23 (46%), 49 (98%) and in all cases by transabdominal, transperineal and transvaginal ultrasonography respectively. In the transabdominal technique, no significant differences in woman's age, weight, body-mass index and parity were observed between measurable and non-measurable cases. Significant correlation was demonstrated between transperineal and transvaginal ultrasound (r = 0.73, p < 0.01). A significantly higher discomfort score was demonstrated in transvaginal ultrasonography, but no significant difference in discomfort score was found between transabdominal and transperineal ultrasonography. CONCLUSION: Transperineal ultrasonography is feasible for acceptable uterine cervical visualization with only slight discomfort to the patients.