Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2011; 28(4): 273-276
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1270110
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Cervical Length and Delivery Outcomes in Patients with Prophylactic Cervical Cerclage

Joseph G. Ouzounian1 , Lisa M. Korst1 , Richard H. Lee1
  • 1Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 December 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

We sought to determine the relationship between cervical length and delivery outcome in patients who received prophylactic cervical cerclage. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with singleton gestations who underwent cerclage during calendar years 1999 to 2008. A total of 78 patients were included in the study. Multiple clinical characteristics and their relationships to delivery outcome were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Cervical length at the time of surgery and history of one or more prior second-trimester losses were strongly associated with delivery at or after 32 weeks gestation (p = 0.005 and p = 0.01, respectively). In fact, a cervical length greater than 2 cm at the time of surgery was associated with delivery at 32 weeks or greater (odds ratio 5.74, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 18.5; p = 0.003). Cervical length was associated with the delivery outcome of patients with prophylactic cerclage and may be helpful in selection of surgical candidates.

KEYWORDS

Cerclage - cervical length - preterm delivery

REFERENCES

  • 1 Stromme W B, Haywa E W. Intrauterine fetal death in the second trimester.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1963;  85 223-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mann E C, McLarn W D, Hayt D B. The physiology and clinical significance of the uterine isthmus. I. The two-stage intrauterine ballon in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical incompetence.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961;  81 209-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shirodkar V N. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortions in the seconds trimester of pregnancy.  Antiseptic. 1955;  52 299-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McDonald I A. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage.  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957;  64 346-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Marshall B R, Evans T N. Cerclage for cervical incompetence.  Obstet Gynecol. 1967;  29 759-763
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Turrentine M A, Stewart D J, Ramirez M M. Use of the cervical cerclage: comparison of a community and university hospital setting.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  109 (2 Pt 1) 320-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wong G P, Farquharson D F, Dansereau J. Emergency cervical cerclage: a retrospective review of 51 cases.  Am J Perinatol. 1993;  10 341-347
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rust O A, Atlas R O, Jones K J, Benham B N, Balducci J. A randomized trial of cerclage versus no cerclage among patients with ultrasonographically detected second-trimester preterm dilatation of the internal os.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  183 830-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Althuisius S M, Dekker G A, Hummel P, Bekedam D J, van Geijn H P. Final results of the Cervical Incompetence Prevention Randomized Cerclage Trial (CIPRACT): therapeutic cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 1106-1112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Terkildsen M F, Parilla B V, Kumar P, Grobman W A. Factors associated with success of emergent second-trimester cerclage.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  101 565-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fellman V, Hellström-Westas L, Norman M EXPRESS Group et al. One-year survival of extremely preterm infants after active perinatal care in Sweden.  JAMA. 2009;  301 2225-2233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ouzounian J G, Goodwin T M. Preterm labor: diagnosis and management. In: Goodwin T M, ed. Management of Common Problems in Ob/Gyn. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publishing; 2010: 9-11
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Bisulli M, Suhag A, Arvon R, Seibel-Seamon J, Visintine J, Berghella V. Interval to spontaneous delivery after elective removal of cerclage.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  201 163 e1-e4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harger J H. Cerclage and cervical insufficiency: an evidence-based analysis.  Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  100 1313-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Latta R A, McKenna B. Emergency cervical cerclage: predictors of success or failure.  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 1996;  5 22-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lipitz S, Libshitz A, Oelsner G et al.. Outcome of second-trimester, emergency cervical cerclage in patients with no history of cervical incompetence.  Am J Perinatol. 1996;  13 419-422
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage . Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;  100 516-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lazar P, Gueguen S, Dreyfus J, Renaud R, Pontinnuer G, Papiernik E. Multicentred controlled trial of cervical cerclage in moderate risk women.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984;  91 731-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Olatunbosun O A, al-Nuaim L, Turnell R W. Emergency cerclage compared with bed rest for advanced cervical dilatation in pregnancy.  Int Surg. 1995;  80 170-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Drakeley A J, Roberts D, Alfirevic Z. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery: meta-analysis of randomized trials.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  102 621-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Aarnoudse J G, Huisjes H J. Complications of cerclage.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1979;  58 255-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Joseph G OuzounianM.D. 

LAC+USC Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

1200 N. State Street, IRD Room 220, Los Angeles, CA 90033

Email: jouzouni@usc.edu