Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization: risk factors for preterm delivery and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage
- PMID: 21278883
- PMCID: PMC3026300
- DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2010.21.4.225
Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization: risk factors for preterm delivery and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the risk factors for preterm birth and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage in patients who had undergone cervical conization due to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia before pregnancy.
Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who gave live singleton births between May 1996 and April 2009, after having cervical conization. Delivery before 37 gestational weeks was considered as preterm birth. The pregnancy outcomes were analyzed with independent sample t-test, chi-square test, and multiple logistic regression using the SPSS ver. 12.0.
Results: Sixty five cases were found. The mean gestational age at delivery was 37 weeks (SD, 3.5). Eighteen patients (27.7%) had preterm delivery. The type of conization, the volume of the specimen, and second trimester cervical length were related to preterm birth (p≤0.001, p=0.019, p≤0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only mid-trimester cervical length was statistically significant for preterm birth (p=0.012; odds ratio, 0.194; confidence interval, 0.055 to 0.693). Six out of 65 patients had undergone prophylactic cerclage, and three (50%) of them had preterm births, while 15 (25%) patients without cerclage had preterm births.
Conclusion: The type of conization, the volume of specimen, and second trimester cervical length may be the risk factors for preterm birth in patients who have a prior history of cervical conization. Prophylactic cerclage may not be helpful in preventing preterm birth, therefore more careful consideration should be paid in deciding cerclage after conization during prenatal counseling.
Keywords: Cervical cerclage; Conization; Preterm birth.
Conflict of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
References
-
- Crane JM. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:1058–1062. - PubMed
-
- Kainz C, Gitsch G, Heinzl H, Breitenecker G. Incidence of cervical smears indicating dysplasia among Austrian women during the 1980s. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:541–544. - PubMed
-
- Jolley JA, Wing DA. Pregnancy management after cervical surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:528–533. - PubMed
-
- Gentry DJ, Baggish MS, Brady K, Walsh PM, Hungler MS. The effects of loop excision of the transformation zone on cervical length: implications for pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:516–520. - PubMed
-
- Prendiville W. Large loop excision of the transformation zone. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995;38:622–639. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous