Download PDF
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2015; 219(03): 136-142
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390416
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Indikationsbezogene Effektivität von Verschlussoperationen am Muttermund

Indication-Related Effectivity of Cervical Occlusion Techniques in Women with Threatening Preterm Birth
F. Ohnolz
1   Frauenklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, München
,
K.T. M. Schneider
2   Institut für medizinische Statistik und Epidemiologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, München
,
B. Haller
2   Institut für medizinische Statistik und Epidemiologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, München
,
B. Kuschel
1   Frauenklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, München
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 16 April 2014

angenommen nach Überarbeitung 28 August 2014

Publication Date:
01 April 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieser Studie ist es herauszufinden, welche Operationsmethode [Totaler Muttermundverschluss (TMV), Cerclage (C) oder Kombination aus beidem (C+TMV)] bei welcher Indikation (Risikoanamnese, Zervixinsuffizienz, prolabierende Fruchtblase) die größte Tragzeitverlängerung erbringt. Hierzu wurden 200 am Hause durchgeführte Eingriffe ausgewertet. Bei Patientinnen mit Risikoanamnese (Z. n. Spätabort/Frühgeburt, n=80) konnte durch einen prophylaktischen TMV die Rate an Lebendgeburten von 35% ohne TMV auf 95% mit TMV erhöht werden (p<0,001). Die Risikodifferenz für einen Spätabort betrug − 60% (p<0,001) und für eine Frühgeburt − 30% (p=0,01) nach TMV. Bei dieser Indikation scheint der TMV der Cerclage hinsichtlich der Tragzeitverlängerung überlegen (139 vs. 113 Tage), die kombinierte Operationsmethode (Cerclage+TMV) hingegen nur wenig Vorteil zu bringen (142 Tage). Bei Patientinnen mit Zervixinsuffizienz (n=86) konnte die Schwangerschaft im Mittel um 82 (C), 79 (TMV) und 109 Tage (C+TMV) (p=0,003–0,017) verlängert und bei Patientinnen mit prolabierender Fruchtblase (n=34) im Mittel um 63 (C), 61 (TMV) und 76 (C+TMV) Tage verlängert werden. Nach vorliegenden Daten kann bei Patientinnen mit Zervixinsuffizienz bzw. prolabierender Fruchtblase durch eine Kombination aus Cerclage und TMV die größte Tragzeitverlängerung erzielt werden. Diese Datenanalyse soll als Basis einer prospektiv randomisierten Studie zur gleichen Thematik dienen.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify which operation technique [total cervical occlusion (TMV), cerclage (C) or combination of both (TMV+C)] would lead to the greatest pregnancy prolongation in 3 different collectives of patients at risk (history of preterm birth, cervical insufficiency, prolapsing membranes). In this retrospective data collection, 200 cervical occlusions performed between 1997 and 2010 were analysed. In patients with a history of preterm birth/stillbirth (n=80) a prophylactic TMV increased the lifebirth rate from 35% without TMV to 95% with TMV (p<0.001). The risk diminuation after TMV was − 60% for stillbirth (p<0.001) and − 30% for preterm birth (p=0.01). In this subcollective the TMV seemed to be more effective in pregnancy prolongation (days) than C (139 vs. 113 days), however the combination of both (C+TMV) did not add much benefit (142 days). In patients with cervical insuffiency (n=86) the pregnancy could be prolonged by 82 (C), 79 (TMV) und 109 days (C+TMV) (p=0.003–0.017) and in patients with membrane prolaps (n=34) by 63 (C), 61 (TMV) und 76 (C+TMV) days. According to present data, the combination of cerclage and TMV has the highest benefit on pregnancy prolongation. This analysis should provide a basis for randomised controlled studies on this topic.

Schlüsselwörter

Frühgeburt - Cerclage - Totaler Muttermundverschluss (TMV) - Spätabort

Key words

preterm birth - cerclage - total cervical occlusion - stillbirth

Condensed Content

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet 2012; 379: 2162-2172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hamilton BE. Births: Preliminary Data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Report 2012; 61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 AQUA Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2012, Geburtshilfe, Qualitätsindikatoren In: 2012
    PubMed
  • 4 Saling E. Prevention of habitual abortion and prematurity by early total occlusion of the external os uteri. Europ J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1984; 17: 165-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hein M, Helmig RB, Schonheyder HC et al. An in vitro study of antibacterial properties of the cervical mucus plug in pregnancy. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2001; 185: 586-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hein M, Valore EV, Helmig RB et al. Antimicrobial factors in the cervical mucus plug. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2002; 187: 137-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Andrews WW, Goldenberg RL, Mercer B et al. The Preterm Prediction Study: association of second-trimester genitourinary chlamydia infection with subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2000; 183: 662-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lamont RF. Infection in the prediction and antibiotics in the prevention of spontaneous preterm labour and preterm birth. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2003; 110 (Suppl. 20) 71-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Leitich H, Bodner-Adler B, Brunbauer M et al. Bacterial vaginosis as a risk factor for preterm delivery: a meta-analysis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2003; 189: 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ramsauer B. Spätabort und extreme Frühgeburtlichkeit. Der Gynäkologe 2012; 45: 527-532
    PubMed
  • 11 Saling E, Schumacher E. Der operative Totale Muttermund-Verschluß (TMV). Erhebung von Daten einiger Klinken, die den TMV einsetzen. Z Geburth u Perinat 1996; 200: 82-87
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 1993; 100: 516-523
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists RCOG Guidelines Cervical Cerclage (Green-top 60). In 2011
    PubMed
  • 14 Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Roberts D et al. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 2012; 4 CD008991
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Publications Committee waoVB . Progesterone and preterm birth prevention: translating clinical trials data into clinical practice. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2012; 206: 376-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berghella V, Keeler SM, To MS et al. Effectiveness of cerclage according to severity of cervical length shortening: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology: the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2010; 35: 468-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Saling E. Infektiologische Spätursachen und operativer Muttermundverschluss. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1993; 254: 1265-1271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Secher NJ, McCormack CD, Weber T et al. Cervical occlusion in women with cervical insufficiency: protocol for a randomised, controlled trial with cerclage, with and without cervical occlusion. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2007; 114 (649) e641-e646
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zayyan M, Suhyb SR, Laurel NO. The Use of Total Cervical Occlusion along with McDonald Cerclage in Patients with Recurrent Miscarriage or Preterm Deliveries. Oman medical journal 2012; 27: 63-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Noori M, Helmig RB, Hein M et al. Could a cervical occlusion suture be effective at improving perinatal outcome?. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2007; 114: 532-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Abu Hashim H, Al-Inany H, Kilani Z. A review of the contemporary evidence on rescue cervical cerclage. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2014; 124: 198-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Goldenberg RL. The management of preterm labor. Obstetrics and gynecology 2002; 100: 1020-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Berghella V, Berghella M. Cervical length assessment by ultrasound. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2005; 84: 543-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Thom E et al. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. The New England journal of medicine 2003; 348: 2379-2385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Romero R, Nicolaides K, Conde-Agudelo A et al. Vaginal progesterone in women with an asymptomatic sonographic short cervix in the midtrimester decreases preterm delivery and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and metaanalysis of individual patient data. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2012; 206: e121-e119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists The use of progesterone to prevent preterm delivery. In 2013
    PubMed
  • 27 Arabin B, Halbesma JR, Vork F et al. Is treatment with vaginal pessaries an option in patients with a sonographically detected short cervix?. Journal of perinatal medicine 2003; 31: 122-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Abdel-Aleem H, Shaaban OM, Abdel-Aleem MA. Cervical pessary for preventing preterm birth. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007873.pub2. CD007873
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C et al. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 1800-1806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar