The Effectiveness of Rescue Cervical Cerclage: A Retrospective Observational Study

We purposed to determine the outcome of emergency cervical cerclage (ECC) in pregnancies who had cervical dilatation in clinical examination. We evaluated 20 women between 18-25 weeks and performed ECC with the McDonald technique. We collected data included: prolongation of pregnancy, gestational age at delivery, neonatal survival rate, and perioperative complications. The mean gestational week of pregnancy was 21±1,6 at cerclage operation, and mean cervical dilatation was 2,5±1,1 mm. The mean prolongation of pregnancy and the mean gestational age at delivery were 47,3±37,1, and 27,8±5,3 were respectively. The mean birth weight was 1184±866 g. A perioperative complication occurred in 1 (5%) case. 15 of 20 (75%) neonates admitted to NICU and neonatal survival was 65%. Half of the cases delivered after 28 weeks of gestation, and there was no perinatal mortality in this group. ECC is a beneficial procedure to prolong pregnancy and to improve perinatal outcomes.

PDF

___

1. Rand L, Norwitz ER. Current controversies in cervical cerclage. Semin Perinatol 2003; 27: 73-85.

2. ACOG Practice Bulletin no.142: Cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 372-379.

3. Berghella V. Every 30 seconds, a baby dies of preterm birth. What are you doing about it? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 416-417.

4. Liddiard A, Bhattacharya S, Crichton I. Elective and emergency cervical cerclage and immediate pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective observational study. JRSM Short Rep 2011; 2: 91.

5. Harger JH. Cerclage and cervical insufficiency: an evidence-based analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 1313-1327.

6. Curti A, Simonazzi G, Farina A, Memeci H, Facchinetti F, Rizzo N. Exam-indicated cerclage in patients with fetal membranes ator beyond external os: a retrospective evaluation. J Obstet Gynacol Res 2012; 38: 1352-1357.

7. Aoki S, Ohnuma E, Kurasawa K, Okuda M, Takahashi T. and Hirahara F. Cerclage versus expectant management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40: 381-386.

8. Ehsanipoor RM, Seligman NS, Saccone G, et al. Physical Examination-Indicated Cerclage: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126: 125-135.

9. Namouz S, Porat S, Okun N, Windrim R, Farine D. Emergency cerclage: literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2013; 68: 379- 388.

10. Grobman WA, Terkildsen MF, Soltysik RC, Yarnold PR. Predicting outcome after emergent cerclage using classification tree analysis. Am J Perinatol 2008; 25: 443-448.

11. Fuchs F, Bouyer J, Fernandez H, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Senat MV. Ultrasound cervical length measurement for prediction of delivery before 32 weeks in women with emergency cerclage for cervical insufficiency. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 110: 245-248.

12. Aguin E, Aguin T, Cordoba M, et al. Amniotic fluid inflammation with negative culture and outcome after cervical cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 1990- 1994.

13. Airoldi J, Pereira L, Cotter A, et al. Amniocentesis prior to physical examindicated cerclage in women with midtrimester cervical dilation: results from the expectant management compared to Physical Exam-indicated Cerclage international cohort study. Am J Perinatol 2009; 26: 63-68.

14. Aarts JM, Brons JT, Bruinse HW. Emergency cerclage: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1995; 50: 459.

15. Simcox R, Shennan A. Cervical cerclage in the prevention of preterm birth. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 21: 831.

16. Galyean A, Garite TJ, Maurel K, et al. Removal versus retention of cerclage in preterm premature rupture of membranes: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 1-399.e3997.