Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India
Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 6/2012

01-12-2012 | Original Article

Evaluation of Outcomes Associated with Placement of Elective, Urgent, and Emergency Cerclage

Authors: M. J. Khan, G. Ali, G. Al Tajir, H. Sulieman

Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess pregnancy outcomes after cervical cerclage.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all cervical cerclages placed at Al Qassimi Hospital from 2004 to 2008 was performed. The primary outcome of interest was prolongation of pregnancy beyond 36 wks. Secondary outcomes were premature rupture of membranes, birth weight <1,500 g, and neonatal death.

Results

Cerclage was placed in 145 women: 112 elective, 16 urgent, and 17 emergency groups. Delivery beyond 36 weeks occurred in 79.4, 73.3, and 47.1 % in the elective, urgent, and emergency groups, respectively, p = 0.011. When comparing between elective, urgent, and emergency groups, incidences of low birth weight were 9.8, 13.3, and 33.3 %, respectively, p = 0.06, and premature ruptures of membranes occurred in 7.2, 6.3, and 17.7 %, respectively, p = 0.16. There were five neonatal deaths.

Conclusion

Therefore, although cerclage gives best results when it is performed as an elective procedure, emergency cerclage still confers some benefits.
Literature
1.
Petrou S, Mehta Z, Hockley C, et al. The impact of preterm birth on hospital inpatient admissions and costs during the first 5 years of life. Paediatrics. 2003;112(6 Pt 1):1290–7.CrossRef
2.
Becher N, Waldorf KA, Hein M, et al. The cervical mucous plug: structured review of the literature. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand. 2009;88:502–13.CrossRef
3.
Chandiramani M, Shennan AH. Cervical insufficiency: prediction, diagnosis and prevention. Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;10:99–108.CrossRef
4.
Nelson L, Dola T, Tran T, et al. Pregnancy outcomes following placement of elective, urgent and emergent cerclage. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(3):269–73.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Berghelia V, Odibo AO, Tolosa J. Cerclage for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix found on transvaginal ultrasound examination: a randomised trial. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;191:1311–7.CrossRef
6.
Final Report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage, MRC/RCOG Working party on cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:516–523.
7.
Waloch M. Cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence in Zambian women. Clin Exp Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;23(4):255–62.
8.
Fleischmann G, Steel A, Yoong W, et al. Demographics and outcome of elective cerclage in a multi-ethnic London district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;29(1):17–20.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Shamshad MY, Jehanzaib M. Evaluation of cervical cerclage for sonographically incompetent cervix in at high risk patients. J Ayub Med Coll. 2008;20(2):31–4.
10.
Incerti M, Ghidini A, Locatelli A, et al. Cervical length ≤25 mm in low risk women: a case control study of cerclage with rest vs rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;197:315.el-e4.CrossRef
11.
Cockwell HA, Smith GN. Cervical incompetence and the role of emergency cerclage. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;27:123–9.PubMed
12.
Kurup M, Goldkrand JW. Cervical incompetence: elective, urgent or emergent cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;181(2):240–6.CrossRef
13.
To MS, Pilaniappan V, Skentou C, et al. Elective cerclage vs. ultrasound-indicated cerclage in high risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;19(5):475–7.CrossRef
14.
To MS, Alfirevic Z, Heath VC, et al. Fetal medicine foundation second trimester screening group. Lancet. 2004;363(9424):1849–53.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Owen J, Hankins G, Iams JD, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;201(4):375.e1−e8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of Outcomes Associated with Placement of Elective, Urgent, and Emergency Cerclage
Authors
M. J. Khan
G. Ali
G. Al Tajir
H. Sulieman
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0971-9202
Electronic ISSN: 0975-6434
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-012-0233-x

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 6/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Risk Factors and Clinical Aspects of Recurrent Invasive Cervical Carcinoma

Author Index

Author Index 2012

Original Article

Pure Accelerated Radiation Versus Concomitant Chemoradiation in Selected Cases of Locally Advanced Carcinoma Cervix: A Prospective Study

Subject Index

Subject Index 2012

Original Article

Outcome of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus from a Tertiary Referral Center in South India: A Case–Control Study

Milestones

Indian Contribution to Obstetrics and Gynecology