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
. 2024 Jan 26:21:100276.
doi: 10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100276. eCollection 2024 Mar.

Perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages

Affiliations

Perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages

Aytaj Jafarzade et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to compare the perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages.

Material and methods: This retrospective study included a total of 247 patients, with a total of 142 emergency (with a history of mid-trimester miscarriage or vaginal delivery of < 34 weeks and cervical length < 25 mm) and 105 electives cerclage patients (with painless cervical dilation and cervical length <25 mm) who had cerclage with the vaginal cervical McDonald technique between 1.1.2017-1.10.2022. Pregnant women with normal screening tests at weeks 11-14, normal fetal morphology, and singleton pregnancies were included in the study. The study was conducted in a tertiary center providing NICU care for < 1500 g, less than 32 weeks of age, and on a mechanical ventilator. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were reviewed.

Results: There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding maternal age or BMI. It was observed that the week of delivery was greater for elective cerclages than for emergency cerclages (mean 34.6 GW versus 30.8 GW). The week of cerclage application was statistically higher in emergency cerclage (19.2 GW versus 16.3 GW p < 0.000). In addition, when we evaluated perinatal complications: prenatal Ex (n34 vs. n8 p < 0.001), C-reactive protein which is a marker of neonatal infection (12.7 mg/L vs. 2.5 mg/L p < 0.022), antibiotic use in the NICU (n 35 vs. n23 p < 0.050), the number of days of antibiotic use in the NICU (mean 15.3 days vs. 10.4 days p < 0.024), rate of NICU intubation (n 27 vs. n 11 p < 0.003), and neonatal sequelae (n 16 vs. n 6 p < 0.016) were significantly higher in the emergency cerclage group than in the elective cerclage group. There was no found significant difference between the progesterone given and not given progesterone after the procedure in term of the weeks of delivery (p < 0.810 emergency cervical cerclage; p < 0681 elective cervical cerclage).

Conclusion: Considering the available information, the results of elective cerclage seem to be more beneficial for the patient than those of emergency cerclage. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to perform elective cerclage in patients with mid-trimester or preterm miscarriage and concomitant cervical shortening before emergency cerclage is required. Furthermore, the benefit of progestin, in addition after surgical intervention, has not been established.

Keywords: Cervical cerclage; Cervical insufficiency; Cervical shortening; Elective cerclage; Emergency cerclage; Preterm birth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG practice bulletin No.142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:372–379. - PubMed
    1. Brown R., Gagnon R., Delisle M.F. No. 373-cervical insufficiency and cervical cerclage. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41:233–247. - PubMed
    1. Romero R., Espinoza J., Erez O., Hassan S. The role of cervical cerclage in obstetric practice: can the patient who could benefit from this procedure be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.12.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kimber-Trojnar Z. Management of concomitant cervical insufficiency and intrauterine adhesions. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:526. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.137. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wood S.L., Owen J. Cerclage: shirodkar, McDonald, and modifications. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;59:302–310. - PubMed