O&G SAQs · Early pregnancy care
Early pregnancy ultrasound and hCG interpretation — structured SAQ (15 marks)
FRANZCOG-format structured SAQ on early pregnancy ultrasound and hCG interpretation: correct handling of a sub-threshold empty sac, the false-positive evidence behind the modern cut-offs, refuting the discriminatory zone with data, and the pseudosac discriminators. Includes the per-sub-part mark scheme, common errors and examiner notes.
On this page & tools
Target exams
How this SAQ is marked
Fifteen marks, 20 minutes. This question rewards exact numbers and exact intervals. Where a threshold exists, quote it; where an interval exists, name it in days. Prose without numbers scores poorly here. [1]
Reveal model answer and mark scheme
(a) Classification, management and interval (4 marks)
One mark each, maximum four. [1]
- Classification: intrauterine pregnancy of uncertain viability. There is an intrauterine sac, so this is not a pregnancy of unknown location, but the criteria for either viability or failure are not met.[1]
- The measurement is below the diagnostic threshold. A mean gestational sac diameter of 23 mm with no fetal pole is under the 25.0 mm transvaginal cut-off, so miscarriage cannot be diagnosed today.[1]
- Management: repeat transvaginal ultrasound a minimum of 7 days after the first, and warn that further scans may still be needed before a diagnosis can be made.[1]
- Reason for the interval: the cut-offs and the 7-day gap exist to make a false-positive diagnosis of miscarriage approach zero. Tell her explicitly that waiting for a repeat scan has no detrimental effect on the outcome of a viable pregnancy.[1][2]
(b) Four reasons reporting miscarriage today would be unsafe (4 marks)
One mark each, maximum four. [2][3]
- The measurement is below the criterion. Diagnosis requires a mean gestational sac diameter of 25.0 mm or more with no fetal pole on transvaginal scan.[1]
- The older cut-offs were demonstrably unsafe. With a mean sac diameter cut-off of 16 mm the false-positive rate for miscarriage was 4.4%, and at 20 mm it was still 0.5%; only at 21 mm or more were there no false positives in that cohort.[2]
- Measurement error crosses the threshold. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of transvaginal sac measurement spans several millimetres, so a sac reported at 23 mm may genuinely be several millimetres larger or smaller.[3]
- Her dates are uncertain, and dates are not a viability criterion. Gestational age from the last menstrual period alone must not be used to determine whether a fetal pole or heartbeat should be visible.[1]
Additional credit for noting that the alternative to a 7-day wait is a second opinion on viability, and that either is acceptable once the 25.0 mm threshold is met. [1]
(c) Refuting the discriminatory zone (4 marks)
- State the correct label. An empty uterus with no adnexal findings and a positive pregnancy test is a pregnancy of unknown location, not an ectopic pregnancy. (1 mark)[7]
- State the rule. Serum hCG must not be used to determine the location of a pregnancy; it is used only to assess trophoblastic proliferation and guide management. (1 mark)[7]
- Give the evidence. In a prospective multicentre pregnancy of unknown location cohort, 39 of 358 women (11%) with an hCG above 3000 IU/L still had a viable intrauterine pregnancy. Separately, the hCG level at which a gestational sac would be predicted visible 99% of the time was measured at 3510 mIU/mL, far above the 1500 to 2000 most units quote. (1 mark)[5][6]
- Give the management. Paired serum hCG as near as possible to 48 hours apart and no earlier; act on the change band; written safety-net advice with a 24-hour contact; and a locating scan or clinical review as the band dictates. (1 mark)[7]
(d) True sac versus pseudosac (3 marks)
One mark each, maximum three. [7]
- Position: a true gestational sac is eccentrically placed within the endometrium; a pseudosac sits centrally in the cavity, in the midline.[7]
- Wall: a true sac shows the double decidual sign — a hypoechoic structure surrounded by two concentric echogenic rings; a pseudosac has a single thin outline.[7]
- Contents and evolution: a true sac goes on to contain a yolk sac and then an embryo; a pseudosac never does, is often teardrop-shaped, and may change shape with probe pressure.[7][1]
You have read the opening of this SAQ. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Obstetrics & Gynaecology fellowship atlas.
References7Show ledgerHide ledger
- [1]Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, et al. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester N Engl J Med, 2013.PMID 24106937
- [2]Abdallah Y, Daemen A, Kirk E, et al. Limitations of current definitions of miscarriage using mean gestational sac diameter and crown-rump length measurements: a multicenter observational study Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011.PMID 21997898
- [3]Pexsters A, Luts J, Van Schoubroeck D, et al. Clinical implications of intra- and interobserver reproducibility of transvaginal sonographic measurement of gestational sac and crown-rump length at 6-9 weeks' gestation Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011.PMID 21077156
- [4]Preisler J, Kopeika J, Ismail L, et al. Defining safe criteria to diagnose miscarriage: prospective observational multicentre study BMJ, 2015.PMID 26400869
- [5]Bobdiwala S, Kyriacou C, Christodoulou E, et al. Evaluating cut-off levels for progesterone, β human chorionic gonadotropin and β human chorionic gonadotropin ratio to exclude pregnancy viability in women with a pregnancy of unknown location: A prospective multicenter cohort study Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2022.PMID 34817062
- [6]Connolly A, Ryan DH, Stuebe AM, Wolfe HM Reevaluation of discriminatory and threshold levels for serum β-hCG in early pregnancy Obstet Gynecol, 2013.PMID 23262929
- [7]Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Diagnosis and Management of Ectopic Pregnancy: Green-top Guideline No. 21 BJOG, 2016.PMID 27813249