↓ Skip to main content

Pregnancy outcomes and superiorities of prophylactic cervical cerclage and therapeutic cervical cerclage in cervical insufficiency pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pregnancy outcomes and superiorities of prophylactic cervical cerclage and therapeutic cervical cerclage in cervical insufficiency pregnant women
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00404-018-4766-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanyan Liu, Zikan Ke, Wanmin Liao, Hanping Chen, Shiqing Wei, Xiaoquan Lai, Xi Chen

Abstract

To compare the clinical effect of prophylactic cervical cerclage and therapeutic cervical cerclage on pregnancy outcome and operative factors in cervical insufficiency pregnant women. A retrospective study was conducted between June 2014 and September 2016 in a maternity ward, which included women who have had a single pregnancy and have been carried out a McDonald cerclage. All maternal medical records were reviewed. The efficacy of cerclage for preventing late foetal loss was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The results showed that there were significant associations between cerclage operations and pregnancy outcomes in the duration of pregnancy prolongation in terms of live births, gestation age, live birth and cesarean section rate. In prophylactic cervical cerclage, compared with therapeutic cervical cerclage, cervical length before surgery was significantly longer (32.7 ± 5.8 vs 19.9 ± 7.3 mm, p < 0.0001). Mean operative duration and postoperative length of hospital stay in prophylactic cervical cerclage were shorter than those in therapeutic cervical cerclage (22.1 ± 10.3 vs 28.9 ± 13.0 min, p = 0.0241 and 5.6 ± 1.8 vs 7.0 ± 2.8 days, p = 0.0354), respectively. Compared with therapeutic cerclage, prophylactic cerclage had more advantages in gestational age at delivery (35.2 ± 5.5 and 31.7 ± 6.5 weeks, p = 0.0061), deliveries < 37 gestational weeks (40 vs 69.2%, p = 0.0159), live births (93.3 vs 69.2%, p = 0.0143) and the duration of pregnancy prolongation in terms of live births (19.5 ± 5.0 vs 12.0 ± 8.2 weeks, p = 0.0002). There was a higher cesarean section rate in prophylactic group than that in therapeutic group (50 vs 25.6%, p = 0.0383). The logistic analysis showed that the cervical length before surgery was the only independent prognostic factor [OR 2.860 (1.425, 5.742) p = 0.0031] for pregnancy outcome, and that is the cervical length before surgery affected late foetal loss. Our study suggests that, both prophylactic cervical cerclage and therapeutic cervical cerclage reduce the incidence of recurrent abortion or preterm birth and efficiently extend the length of the pregnancy with live births. The prophylactic cervical cerclage has more advantages in operative time, length of hospital stay after surgery, gestational age at delivery, live births and preterm birth. The length of the cervical before surgery is an independent risk factor for pregnancy outcomes when pregnant women appear in the cervical shortening is less than normal. Cervical cerclage is an effective surgical technique to prevent recurrent abortion or late foetal loss.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 29 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 29 43%