Literature DB >> 15846180

Does the presence of a funnel increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcome in a patient with a short cervix?

Orion A Rust1, Robert O Atlas, Sharon Kimmel, William E Roberts, L Wayne Hess.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine whether the presence of a dilated internal os (funneling or beaking) alters the outcome of patients with a short cervix documented by transvaginal ultrasound in the second trimester. STUDY
DESIGN: Between January 1998 and May 2004, all singleton pregnancies with a short cervix (< or =2.5 cm) and no funnel between 16 and 24 weeks' gestational age were identified by query and review of the Lehigh Valley Perinatal Ultrasound Database. These no funnel patients were compared with patients with a short cervix and funnel matched in accordance with cervical length and risk factors. Multiple variables of perinatal outcome were identified and compared between the Funnel and No Funnel groups. Correlations between cervical measurements and gestational age at birth were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 279 patients with a short cervix identified, 82 were singleton with a T-shaped cervix and no funnel and 82 patients matched with a typical Y-shaped funnel. There was no difference between groups with respect to maternal demographics, previous preterm birth (28.1% No Funnel group vs 36.5% Funnel group, P = .3), prior cervical surgery (24.3% vs 22.0 %, P = .8), gestational age at entry (20.5 +/- 2.1 vs 21.1 +/- 2.4 weeks, P = .1), and cervical length (1.9 +/- 0.4 vs 1.8 +/- 0.5 cm , P = .1). The No Funnel group had significantly less readmissions for preterm labor (43.2% vs 67.1 %, P = .004), chorioamnionitis (2.4% vs 23.2 %, P = .0002), abruption (1.2% vs 13.4 %, P = .007), preterm rupture of membranes (6.1% vs 23.4%, P = .002), and cerclage placement (23.2% vs 43 %, P = .008). The neonates in the no funnel group delivered later (36.2% +/- 4.6 vs 33.8 +/- 5.4 weeks , P = .003), and had less morbidity and mortality (17.1% vs 37.8 %, P = .02) compared with the Funnel group. The width and depth of the funnel did not correlate with perinatal outcome. Cervical length ( R(2) = 0.07, P = .02) and cervical funneling as a categorical variable ( r = 0.3, P = .0002) did correlate with earlier delivery.
CONCLUSION: The disruption of the internal os, as documented by funneling, is a significant risk factor for adverse perinatal outcome (ie, preterm labor, chorioamnionitis, abruption, rupture of the membranes, and serious neonatal morbidity and mortality). Cervical funneling is best measured as a categorical variable (present or absent).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15846180     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.01.076

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  9 in total

1.  Cervical Funneling: Potential Pitfall of Point-of-Care Pelvic Ultrasound.

Authors:  Lori A Stolz; Richard Amini; Elaine H Situ-LaCasse; Faryal Shareef; Heather A Reed; Srikar Adhikari
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-09-03

2.  Cervical funneling: effect on gestational length and ultrasound-indicated cerclage in high-risk women.

Authors:  Melissa S Mancuso; Jeff M Szychowski; John Owen; Gary Hankins; Jay D Iams; Jeanne S Sheffield; Annette Perez-Delboy; Vincenzo Berghella; Debora A Wing; Edwin R Guzman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Labour and delivery: a clinician's perspective on a biomechanics problem.

Authors:  Helen Feltovich
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 3.906

Review 4.  Vaginal progesterone vs. cervical cerclage for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix, previous preterm birth, and singleton gestation: a systematic review and indirect comparison metaanalysis.

Authors:  Agustin Conde-Agudelo; Roberto Romero; Kypros Nicolaides; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; John M O'Brien; Elcin Cetingoz; Eduardo da Fonseca; George Creasy; Priya Soma-Pillay; Shalini Fusey; Cetin Cam; Zarko Alfirevic; Sonia S Hassan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Cervical funneling or intra-amniotic debris and preterm birth in nulliparous women with midtrimester cervical length less than 30 mm.

Authors:  G R Saade; E A Thom; W A Grobman; J D Iams; B M Mercer; U M Reddy; A T N Tita; D J Rouse; Y Sorokin; R J Wapner; K J Leveno; S C Blackwell; M S Esplin; J E Tolosa; J M Thorp; S N Caritis; J P Vandorsten
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 7.299

6.  Cervical stiffness evaluated in vivo by endoflip in pregnant women.

Authors:  Lene Hee; Donghua Liao; Puk Sandager; Hans Gregersen; Niels Uldbjerg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Progesterone for the Prevention of Preterm Birth - an Update of Evidence-Based Indications.

Authors:  Ruben-J Kuon; Pauline Voß; Werner Rath
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 2.915

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the supra-cervical fetal membrane detects an increased risk of prelabor rupture of membranes.

Authors:  Wenxu Qi; Peinan Zhao; Wei Wang; Zichao Wen; Zhexian Sun; Wenjie Wu; Pamela Karen Woodard; Qing Wang; Robert C McKinstry; Yong Wang
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 6.055

9.  Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage.

Authors:  Hayfaa A Wahabi; Amel A Fayed; Samia A Esmaeil; Khawater Hassan Bahkali
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.