![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate cerclage placement after uterine and cervical surgery.
Patients and methods
We compared patients with a prior uterine surgery (with or without cervical surgery) with women having a cerclage for the “classical” indications. Under the classical indications fall history of one or more second-trimester pregnancy losses related to painless cervical dilation, prior cerclage due to painless cervical dilation in the second trimester, painless cervical dilation in the second trimester, ultrasonographic finding with a history of prior preterm birth, prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation and short cervical length (less than 25 mm) before 24 weeks of gestation.
Results
Forty-seven (44.8%) patients had uterine surgery whereas 58 (55.2%) had the “classical” indications for cerclage. The risk of birth at <37 weeks and birth weight <2500 g was similar, but lower for cerclage after previous uterine/cervical surgery for births >37 weeks (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1, 0.8) and hence, for birth weights >2500 g (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.9). Both groups had similar incidence of preterm rupture of membranes, chorioamnionitis, need for induction of labor, cesarean births as well as low Apgar scores and admission rates to the NICU.
Conclusions
The major goals of reducing births at <37 weeks and low birth weight of <2500 g are achievable with a cerclage in patients with a prior uterine/cervical surgery as it is in patients with a “classical” indication for cerclage placement.
Keywords:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).