{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,26]],"date-time":"2026-09-26T06:10:09Z","timestamp":1790403009956,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2010,5,11]],"date-time":"2010-05-11T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1273536000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Ultrasound in Obstet &amp; Gyne"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010,11]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives<\/jats:title><jats:p>To determine if pregnant women with a prior cone biopsy or loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) have a shorter midtrimester cervical length than do matched controls without a history of cervical surgery.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>Eighty\u2010five pregnant women with a singleton gestation and previous cone biopsy or LEEP and 85 controls matched by age ( \u00b1 5 years), race, gestational age ( \u00b1 2 weeks), and number of prior vaginal deliveries underwent a single transvaginal cervical sonographic scan at 15\u201322 weeks' gestation. No patient had a cerclage in either group.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>Mean cervical length was significantly shorter in the cone biopsy\/LEEP group (3.3 vs. 3.9 cm, <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> &lt; 0.001), with no significant difference in the proportion of cervical lengths less than 2.5 cm (5.9 vs. 2.4%). Gestational age at delivery was slightly but significantly lower in the cone biopsy\/LEEP group (38.1 vs. 39.1 weeks, <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic> = 0.005) than in the control group, with a higher proportion of women delivering late preterm and very preterm in the cone biopsy\/LEEP group. However, no woman with a prior cone biopsy\/LEEP experienced a midtrimester loss suggestive of cervical insufficiency, and no patient with a cervical length less than 2.5 cm delivered before 34 weeks' gestation.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title><jats:p>Midtrimester cervical length in women with a previous cone biopsy or LEEP is significantly shorter than in those without prior cervical surgery. Based on the low frequency of a short cervix or midtrimester loss in women with prior excisional surgery, the routine use of midtrimester cervical sonography in such women is not supported. Copyright \u00a9 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.7682","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2010,5,11]],"date-time":"2010-05-11T10:22:49Z","timestamp":1273573369000},"page":"613-617","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":37,"title":["Cervical sonography in pregnant women with a prior cone biopsy or loop electrosurgical excision procedure"],"prefix":"10.1002","volume":"36","author":[{"given":"R. L.","family":"Fischer","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"G.","family":"Sveinbjornsson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"C.","family":"Hansen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2010,5,11]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_5_2_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(06)68181-6"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.a1284"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(03)00741-5"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000192169.44775.76"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000270112.05025.1d"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2004.06.087"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_8_2","first-page":"909","article-title":"Cervical length screening in patients who have undergone loop electrosurgical excision procedure","volume":"53","author":"Parikh R","year":"2008","journal-title":"J Reprod Med"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00003081-200312000-00026"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/GCO.0b013e328317a411"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(04)16351-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2004.06.054"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2000.109040"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_14_2","first-page":"390","article-title":"Prophylactic cerclage in pregnancy. Effect in women with a history of conization","volume":"42","author":"Zeisler H","year":"1997","journal-title":"J Reprod Med"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJM199602293340904"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(98)00386-X"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181b052de"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.02.004"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.291.17.2100"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181b5cba3"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0020-7292(95)02432-C"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.7863\/jum.2005.24.11.1483"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2000.104209"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0301-2115(01)00574-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_25_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2001.118655"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_26_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.08.015"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_27_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.07.005"}],"container-title":["Ultrasound in Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1002%2Fuog.7682","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1002\/uog.7682","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,8]],"date-time":"2023-10-08T18:04:49Z","timestamp":1696788289000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/uog.7682"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2010,5,11]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010,11]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1002\/uog.7682"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/uog.7682","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0960-7692","1469-0705"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0960-7692","type":"print"},{"value":"1469-0705","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2010,5,11]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2010-04-21","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2010-05-11","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}