Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 17;22(1):217.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04557-7.

Effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of history-indicated, ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclage: a retrospective study

Ceren Golbasi  1 , Hakan Golbasi  2 , Burak Bayraktar  3 , Baris Sever  4 , Tayfun Vural  5 , Atalay Ekin  4
Affiliations

Effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of history-indicated, ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclage: a retrospective study

Ceren Golbasi et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of cerclage procedure according to indication.

Methods: The pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of the patients who underwent cerclage with the diagnosis of cervical insufficiency between January 2016 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into three groups: a history-indicated group, an ultrasound-indicated group and a physical examination-indicated group.

Results: Seventy-three patients who underwent cerclage were included in the study. Of these, 41 (56.2%) had history-indicated, 17 (23.3%) had ultrasound-indicated and 15 (20.5%) had physical examination-indicated cerclages. Compared to history- and ultrasound-indicated cerclage group, duration from cerclage to delivery (18.6 ± 6.9 weeks vs 17.8±5.9 weeks vs 11 ± 5.3 weeks, p = 0.003) was significantly lower and delivery < 28 weeks (9.8% vs 5.9% vs 33.3%, p = 0.042) and delivery < 34 weeks of gestation (26.8% vs 11.8% vs 60%, p = 0.009) were significantly higher in physical examination-indicated cerclage group. In physical examination-indicated cerclage, compared with history- and ultrasound-indicated cerclage low birth weight, low APGAR score, neonatal intensive care unit admission and neonatal mortality were higher, although not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Pregnant women who underwent physical examination-indicated cerclage had higher risks for preterm delivery < 28 weeks and < 34 weeks than history- and ultrasound-indicated cerclage.

Keywords: Cervical cerclage; Cervical insufficiency; Perinatal outcome; Preterm birth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A Kaplan–Meyer survival curve of gestational age at delivery from cerclage placement until delivery, comparing patients with different indications
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shennan AH, Bewley S. Why should preterm births be rising? BMJ. 2006;332(7547):924–925. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7547.924. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Halimi Asl AA, Safari S, Parvareshi Hamrah M. Epidemiology and Related Risk Factors of Preterm Labor as an obstetrics emergency. Emerg Tehran Iran. 2017;5(1):e3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB, Langhoff-Roos J. Recurrence of second trimester miscarriage and extreme preterm delivery at 16–27 weeks of gestation with a focus on cervical insufficiency and prophylactic cerclage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(12):1383–1390. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13027. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Li W, Li Y, Zhao X, Cheng C, Burjoo A, Yang Y, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical incompetence combined with intrauterine adhesions. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(4):54. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.12.148. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Macdonald R, Smith P, Vyas S. Cervical incompetence: the use of transvaginal sonography to provide an objective diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(3):211–216. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00459.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources