3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      FIGO good practice recommendations on cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm birth

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cervical cerclage is an intervention which when given to the right women can prevent preterm birth and second‐trimester fetal losses. A history‐indicated cerclage should be offered to women who have had three or more preterm deliveries and/or mid‐trimester losses. An ultrasound‐indicated cerclage should be offered to women with a cervical length <25 mm if they have had one or more spontaneous preterm birth and/or mid‐trimester loss. In high‐risk women who have not had a previous mid‐trimester loss or preterm birth, an ultrasound‐indicated cerclage does not have a clear benefit in women with a short cervix. However, for twins, the advantage seems more likely at shorter cervical lengths (<15 mm). In women who present with exposed membranes prolapsing through the cervical os, a rescue cerclage can be considered on an individual case basis, taking into account the high risk of infective morbidity to mother and baby. An abdominal cerclage can be offered in women who have had a failed cerclage (delivery before 28 weeks after a history or ultrasound‐indicated [but not rescue] cerclage). If preterm birth has not occurred, removal is considered at 36–37 weeks in women anticipating a vaginal delivery.

          Synopsis

          Cervical cerclage given to the right women can prevent preterm birth and second‐trimester fetal losses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Conservative methods to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and microinvasive cervical cancer are commonly used in young women because of the advent of effective screening programmes. In a meta-analysis, we investigated the effect of these procedures on subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes. We searched for studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE and classified them by the conservative method used and the outcome measure studied regarding both fertility and pregnancy. Pooled relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated with a random-effects model and interstudy heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane's Q test. We identified 27 studies. Cold knife conisation was significantly associated with preterm delivery (<37 weeks; relative risk 2.59, 95% CI 1.80-3.72, 100/704 [14%] vs 1494/27 674 [5%]), low birthweight (<2500 g; 2.53, 1.19-5.36, 32/261 [12%] vs 905/13 229 [7%]), and caesarean section (3.17, 1.07-9.40, 31/350 [9%] vs 22/670 [3%]). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was also significantly associated with preterm delivery (1.70, 1.24-2.35, 156/1402 [11%] vs 120/1739 [7%]), low birthweight (1.82, 1.09-3.06, 77/996 [8%] vs 49/1192 [4%]), and premature rupture of the membranes (2.69, 1.62-4.46, 48/905 [5%] vs 22/1038 [2%]). Similar but marginally non-significant adverse effects were recorded for laser conisation (preterm delivery 1.71, 0.93-3.14). We did not detect significantly increased risks for obstetric outcomes after laser ablation. Although severe outcomes such as admission to a neonatal intensive care unit or perinatal mortality showed adverse trends, these changes were not significant. All the excisional procedures to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia present similar pregnancy-related morbidity without apparent neonatal morbidity. Caution in the treatment of young women with mild cervical abnormalities should be recommended. Clinicians now have the evidence base to counsel women appropriately.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length.

            The objective of the study was to assess cerclage to prevent recurrent preterm birth in women with short cervix. Women with prior spontaneous preterm birth less than 34 weeks were screened for short cervix and randomly assigned to cerclage if cervical length was less than 25 mm. Of 1014 women screened, 302 were randomized; 42% of women not assigned and 32% of those assigned to cerclage delivered less than 35 weeks (P = .09). In planned analyses, birth less than 24 weeks (P = .03) and perinatal mortality (P = .046) were less frequent in the cerclage group. There was a significant interaction between cervical length and cerclage. Birth less than 35 weeks (P = .006) was reduced in the less than 15 mm stratum with a null effect in the 15-24 mm stratum. In women with a prior spontaneous preterm birth less than 34 weeks and cervical length less than 25 mm, cerclage reduced previable birth and perinatal mortality but did not prevent birth less than 35 weeks, unless cervical length was less than 15 mm.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomised controlled trial.

              Cervical cerclage has been widely used in the past 50 years to prevent early preterm birth and its associated neonatal mortality and morbidity. Results of randomised trials have not generally lent support to this practice, but this absence of benefit may be due to suboptimum patient selection, which was essentially based on obstetric history. A more effective way of identifying the high-risk group for early preterm delivery might be by transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length. We undertook a multicentre randomised controlled trial to investigate whether, in women with a short cervix identified by routine transvaginal scanning at 22-24 weeks' gestation, the insertion of a Shirodkar suture reduces early preterm delivery. Cervical length was measured in 47?123 women. The cervix was 15 mm or less in 470, and 253 (54%) of these women participated in the study and were randomised to cervical cerclage (127) or to expectant management (126). Primary outcome was the frequency of delivery before 33 completed weeks (231 days) of pregnancy. The proportion of preterm delivery before 33 weeks was similar in both groups, 22% (28 of 127) in the cerclage group versus 26% (33 of 126) in the control group (relative risk=0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31, p=0.44), with no significant differences in perinatal or maternal morbidity or mortality. The insertion of a Shirodkar suture in women with a short cervix does not substantially reduce the risk of early preterm delivery. Routine sonographic measurement of cervical length at 22-24 weeks identifies a group at high risk of early preterm birth.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andrew.shennan@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Int J Gynaecol Obstet
                Int J Gynaecol Obstet
                10.1002/(ISSN)1879-3479
                IJGO
                International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0020-7292
                1879-3479
                14 September 2021
                October 2021
                : 155
                : 1 , Special section: FIGO Working Group for Preterm Birth – Good Practice Recommendations ( doiID: 10.1002/ijgo.v155.1 )
                : 19-22
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Women and Children’s Health King’s College London London UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute of Clinical Science Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden
                [ 3 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Sahlgrenska University Hospital Gothenburg Sweden
                [ 4 ] Department of Genetics and Bioinformatics Domain of Health Data and Digitalization Institute of Public Health Oslo Norway
                [ 5 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago Illinois USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Andrew Shennan, Department of Women and Children’s Health, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH, UK.

                Email: andrew.shennan@ 123456kcl.ac.uk

                Article
                IJGO13835
                10.1002/ijgo.13835
                9291060
                34520055
                27cfa21f-a251-4ff5-94ef-4b28d5bfe99f
                © 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 4, Words: 2838
                Funding
                Funded by: March of Dimes
                Categories
                Special Article
                Special Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                October 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:18.07.2022

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                cerclage,intra‐abdominal cerclage,preterm birth,prevention
                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                cerclage, intra‐abdominal cerclage, preterm birth, prevention

                Comments

                Comment on this article