AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bernard, K.
Right arrow Articles by Cooperberg, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bernard, K.
Right arrow Articles by Cooperberg, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 144, Issue 3, 597-602
Copyright © 1985 by American Roentgen Ray Society

Articles

Sonographic differentiation between blighted ovum and early viable pregnancy

KG Bernard and PL Cooperberg

Thirty-five patients referred either for confirmation of pregnancy or because of vaginal bleeding associated with early pregnancy were examined sonographically. The sonograms were evaluated prospectively to determine whether a blighted ovum or early missed abortion could be differentiated from an early viable pregnancy lacking fetal echoes. A well defined trophoblastic reaction, continuous around the gestational sac, is a very good prognostic sign for continued viability; a sac greater than 2 cm in diameter without embryonic echoes is a poor prognostic sign. However, no sonographic features were found to be reliable in differentiating viable from nonviable pregnancy (presenting as an empty gestational sac) on a single sonographic examination. The authors recommend follow-up sonographic evaluation in 10-14 days.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. Odeh, Y. Hirsh, S. Degani, V. Grinin, E. Ofir, and J. Bornstein
Three-Dimensional Sonographic Volumetry of the Gestational Sac and the Amniotic Sac in the First Trimester
J. Ultrasound Med., March 1, 2008; 27(3): 373 - 378.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
O. S. Tang, C. Y.T. Ong, K. Y. Tse, E. H.Y. Ng, S. W.H. Lee, and P. C. Ho
A randomized trial to compare the use of sublingual misoprostol with or without an additional 1 week course for the management of first trimester silent miscarriage
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2006; 21(1): 189 - 192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
O. S. Tang, W. N. T. Lau, E. H. Y. Ng, S. W. H. Lee, and P. C. Ho
A prospective randomized study to compare the use of repeated doses of vaginal with sublingual misoprostol in the management of first trimester silent miscarriages
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2003; 18(1): 176 - 181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. W. Ngai, Y. M. Chan, O. S. Tang, and P. C. Ho
Vaginal misoprostol as medical treatment for first trimester spontaneous miscarriage
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2001; 16(7): 1493 - 1496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1985 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.