Pregnancy outcomes following transvaginal cerclage for cervical insufficiency: Results from a single-center retrospective study

Abstract

To study maternal and perinatal outcomes after cervical cerclage in both singleton and twin pregnancies, we retrospectively reviewed women undergoing cervical cerclage for cervical insufficiency at Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, China from January 1, 2010 to July 31, 2015 to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes for subgroups with cervical length (CL) ≤15, >15 to <25, and ≥25 mm. Of 166 patients who underwent cervical cerclage, after exclusion of patients with missed abortion and continuing pregnancy, 141 patients (121 singleton and 20 twin pregnancies) were included in the analysis. Mean gestational age at birth was 34.22 and 28.27 weeks for singleton and twin pregnancies, respectively. There were 17 (14.05%) and 13 (33.33%) neonatal deaths in singleton and twin pregnancies, respectively. Mean age (31.60±4.62 vs. 31.22±4.63 years, P=0.39) and gestational weeks at cerclage (18.50±4.62 vs. 19.31±4.99, P=0.47) were similar for both groups. Mean gestational weeks at delivery (34.22±5.77 vs. 28.27±6.17, P<0.001) and the suture to delivery interval (15.72±7.15 vs. 8.96±6.70, P<0.001) were significantly longer in the singleton group. These variables indicate a linear negative correlation with the degree of CL shortening, with better outcomes in patients with CL ≥25 mm who underwent cerclage, both in singleton and twin pregnancies. No difference in mode of delivery existed between the singleton group and twin group. Our results indicate a high risk of preterm delivery in both groups, especially in the twin group. Patients with a history of preterm labor and CL >25 mm in the current pregnancy, possibly in a twin pregnancy, could benefit from elective cervical cerclage; however, cervical cerclage was inadvisable for twin pregnancies with a CL >15 and <25 mm. Our data emphasize the importance of re-evaluating the efficacy of cervical cerclage for twin pregnancies in well-designed clinical trials.

Keywords

cervical cerclage / cervical insufficiency / preterm birth / twin / outcomes / pregnancy

References

[1] StupinJH, DavidM, SiedentopfJP, et al. . Emergency cerclage versus bed rest for amniotic sac prolapse before 27 gestational weeks. A retrospective, comparative study of 161 women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2008, 139(1): 32-37 PMID: 18243484

[2] McNameeKM, DawoodF, FarquharsonRG. Mid-trimester pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2014, 41(1): 87-102 PMID: 24491985

[3] ACOG Practice Bulletin No.142: Cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Obstet Gynecol, 2014,123(2 Pt 1):372–379

[4] NelsonL, DolaT, TranT, et al. . Pregnancy outcomes following placement of elective, urgent and emergent cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2009, 22(3): 269-273 PMID: 19330713

[5] FleischmannG, SteelA, YoongW, et al. . Demographics and outcome of elective cerclage in a multi-ethnic London district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2009, 29(1): 17-20 PMID: 19280489

[6] BernabeuA, GoyaM, MartraM, et al. . Physical examination-indicated cerclage in singleton and twin pregnancies: maternal-fetal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2015, 29(13): 2109-2113 PMID: 26371753

[7] MCDONALDIA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp, 1957, 64(3): 346-350 PMID: 13449654

[8] HamiltonBE, HoyertDL, MartinJA, et al. . Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-2011. Pediatrics, 2013, 131(3): 548-558 PMID: 23400611

[9] Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of ObstetriciansGynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage.. MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1993, 100(6): 516-523

[10] BerghellaV, RafaelTJ, SzychowskiJM, et al. . Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography in women with singleton gestations and previous preterm birth: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 117(3): 663-671 PMID: 21446209

[11] AlthuisiusSM, DekkerGA, HummelP, et al. . Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial: emergency cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2003, 189(4): 907-910 PMID: 14586323

[12] DorJ, ShalevJ, MashiachS, et al. . Elective cervical suture of twin pregnancies diagnosed ultrasonically in the first trimester following induced ovulation. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 1982, 13(1): 55-60 PMID: 7056503

[13] BerghellaV, OdiboAO, ToMS, et al. . Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol., 2005, 106(1): 181-189 PMID: 15994635

[14] RomanA, RochelsonB, FoxNS, et al. . Efficacy of ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2015, 212(6): 788.e1-788.e6 PMID: 25637840

[15] BerghellaV, OdiboAO, ToMS, et al. . Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 106(1): 181-189 PMID: 15994635

[16] BerghellaV, KeelerSM, ToMS, et al. . Effectiveness of cerclage according to severity of cervical length shortening: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 35(4): 468-473 PMID: 20052661

[17] OwenJ, HankinsG, IamsJD, et al. . Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 201(4): 3755

[18] NelsonL, DolaT, TranT, et al. . Pregnancy outcomes following placement of elective, urgent and emergent cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2009, 22(3): 269-273 PMID: 19330713

[19] OwenJ, HankinsG, IamsJD, et al. . Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 201(4): 3755

[20] LarmaJD, IamsJD. Is sonographic assessment of the cervix necessary and helpful. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 55(1): 324-335 PMID: 22343248 PMCID: 3521615

[21] Giraldo-IsazaMA, BerghellaV. Cervical cerclage and preterm PROM. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 54(2): 313-320 PMID: 21508701

[22] AokiS, OhnumaE, KurasawaK, et al. . Emergency cerclage versus expectant management for prolapsed fetal membranes: a retrospective, comparative study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2014, 40(2): 381-386 PMID: 24147884