| Literature DB >> 36253759 |
Haiyan Yu1,2, Xiaodong Wang3,4, Guiqiong Huang5,6, Chunyan Deng5,6, Hua Liao5,6, Qing Hu5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cerclage has been proposed as an effective treatment for cervical insufficiency, but there has been controversy regarding the surgical options of cervical cerclage in singleton and twin pregnancies. This study aimed to compare the pregnancy outcomes between transvaginal cervical cerclage (TVC) and laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage (LAC) in patients with cervical insufficiency. We also aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety, and provide more evidence to support the application of cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical insufficiency; Laparoscopic cervical cerclage; Pregnancy outcomes; Preterm birth; Transvaginal cervical cerclage; Twin pregnancy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36253759 PMCID: PMC9575299 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-05108-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.105
Clinical characteristics of the study population
| TVC group | LAC group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n) | 233 | 56 | - |
| Age(years) | 30.96 ± 4.12 | 32.27 ± 3.89 | 0.28 |
| Gravidity | 3(2–4) | 3(2–5) | 0.044 |
| the incidence of twin pregnancies (n[%]) | 46 [19.7%] | 7 [12.5%] | 0.209 |
| Prior ssA-PTB | 1(0.5-2) | 1(1–2) | < 0.001 |
| Prior failed transvaginal cerclage | 4[1.7%] | 6[10.7%] | 0.005 |
| Prior operative hysteroscopy (n[%]) | 53[23%] | 8[14%] | 0.164 |
| Prior cervical surgery (n[%]) | 11[5%] | 5[10%] | 0.216 |
| Conception by IVF(n[%]) | 68[29%] | 19[34%] | 0.487 |
| Emergency cervical cerclage (n[%]) | 160[68%] | 0[0] | < 0.001 |
| GA at cerclage placement (weeks) | 22.4 (17-24.7) | before pregnancy or during the first trimester | - |
| Bleeding during the CC (ml) | 15.6 ± 6.8 | 20.3 ± 5.2 | 0.37 |
| The length of the cervix (cm) | 1.2 (0.8-2) | - | - |
| Emergency CC | 1 (0.6–1.5) | ||
| prophylactic CC | 2.12 (1.5-3.0) | - | |
| Cervical dilation at diagnosis (cm) | 0(0-0.5) | - | - |
TVC: transvaginal cervical cerclage; LAC: laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage; ssA-PTB: spontaneous second-trimester abortions and/or preterm births < 34 weeks; IVF: In-Vitro Fertilization; CC: cervical cerclage
The detailed data of 6 patients received repeat cerclage in the TVC group
| GA at first CC | GA at repeat CC | Gravidity | prior ssA-PTB | Prior hysteroscopy | GA at delivery | Delivery Mode | complications | Apgar score (1-5-10 min) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| patient 1 | 25 + 2 | 28 + 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 28 + 5 | VD | / | 8-9-9 |
| patient 2 | 16 + 4 | 25 + 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 37 + 4 | VD | CL, PPH | 10-10-10 |
| patient 3 | 14 + 5 | 22 + 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 29 + 3 | CD | / | 8-9-9 |
| patient 4 | 20 + 3 | 23 + 5 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 26 + 6 | VD | CL | 7-8-9 |
| patient 5 | 18 | 24 + 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 28 | VD | CL, PPH | 8-9-9 |
| patient 6 | 20 + 5 | 25 + 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 28 + 4 | CD | CL | 8-9-10/7-8-9 |
TVC: transvaginal cervical cerclage; GA: gestational age; CC: cervical cerclage; ssA-PTB: spontaneous second-trimester abortions and/or preterm births; VD: vaginal delivery; CD: caesarean delivery; CL: cervical laceration; PPH: postpartum haemorrhage
The primary outcomes between the TVC group and the LAC group
| TVC group (n = 233) | LAC group (n = 56) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| sPTB < 24 weeks | 15[6.4%] | 0 | 0.08 |
| sPTB < 28 weeks | 63[27%] | 0 | < 0.001 |
| sPTB < 32 weeks | 94[40.3%] | 1[1.8%] | < 0.001 |
| sPTB < 34 weeks | 109[46.8%] | 4[7.1%] | < 0.001 |
| sPTB < 37 weeks | 145 [62.2%] | 15 [8.9%] | < 0.001 |
| GA at delivery | 34.4(27.1–38.7) | 38.3(36-39.6) | < 0.001 |
| Admission after CC(n[%]) | 148[63.5%] | 8[14%] | < 0.001 |
TVC: transvaginal cervical cerclage; LAC: laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage; sPTB: spontaneous preterm birth; GA: estational age; CC: cervical cerclage
The secondary outcomes between the TVC group and the LAC group
| TVC group (n = 233) | LAC group (n = 56) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cesarean delivery(n[%]) | 93[39.9%] | 55[98.2%] | < 0.001 |
| Duration of hospital stay after delivery (days) | 3(2–4) | 3(3–4) | < 0.001 |
| removal of the cerclage (n[%]) | 233 [100%] | 24 [42.8%] | < 0.001 |
| delivery-related complications® (n[%]) | 37 [15.9%] | 0 | < 0.001 |
| Infection and Clinical chorioamnionitis | 12 [5.2%] | 0 | 0.132 |
| Neonate births | 274 + 5* | 60 + 3* | - |
| Stillbirths (n[%]) | 29 [10.6%] | 1 [1.7%] | 0.029 |
| Live births (n[%]) | 245 [89.4%] | 59 [98.3%] | 0.029 |
| Birth weight (kg) | 2.21 ± 0.99 | 3.01 ± 0.63 | 0.000 |
| NICU admission (n[%]) | 141 [57.6%] | 10 [16.9%] | 0.000 |
| 1-min Apgar score | 10 (8–10) | 10 (10–10) | < 0.001 |
| 5-min Apgar score | 10 (9–10) | 10 (10–10) | < 0.001 |
| 1-min Apgar score < 7 | 35 [14.3%] | 0 | 0.002 |
| 5-min Apgar score < 7 | 9 [3.7%] | 0 | 0.214 |
| Duration of neonatology stay (days) | 29 (9–55) | 9 (5.75-19) | 0.017 |
| Neonate death | 14 [5.7%] | 0 | 0.08 |
®the include ; *means selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies
TVC: transvaginal cervical cerclage; LAC: laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage; NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
A subgroup analysis between prophylactic CC and LAC group
| prophylactic TVC group (n = 73) | LAC group (n = 56) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| sPTB < 24 weeks | 4 | 0 | 0.132 |
| sPTB < 28 weeks | 11 | 0 | 0.002 |
| sPTB < 32 weeks | 17 | 1 | < 0.001 |
| sPTB < 34 weeks | 22 | 4 | 0.001 |
| GA at delivery | 36.4 (32.6–37.7) | 38.3(36-39.6) | < 0.001 |
| Admission after CC(n[%]) | 48 [65.7%] | 8[14%] | < 0.001 |
| Caesarean delivery(n[%]) | 28 | 55 | < 0.001 |
| Length of hospital stay after delivery (days) | 2 (2–3) | 3(3–4) | < 0.001 |
| delivery-related complications (n[%]) | 12 [16.4%] | 0[0] | 0.001 |
| Infection and Clinical chorioamnionitis | 3 [4.1%] | 0 | 0.257 |
| Neonate births | 76 | 60 + 3* | - |
| Stillbirths (n[%]) | 12 [15.8%] | 1 [1.7%] | 0.006 |
| Live births (n[%]) | 64 [84.2%] | 59 [98.3%] | 0.001 |
| Birth weight (kg) | 2.43 ± 1.00 | 3.01 ± 0.63 | < 0.001 |
| NICU admission (n[%]) | 28 [43.8%] | 10 [16.9%] | 0.001 |
| 1-min Apgar score | 10 (8–10) | 10 (10–10) | < 0.001 |
| 5-min Apgar score | 10 (8–10) | 10 (10–10) | < 0.001 |
| 1-min Apgar score < 7 | 8 [12.5%] | 0 | 0.006 |
| 5-min Apgar score < 7 | 3 [4.7%] | 0 | 0.245 |
| Duration of neonatology stay (days) | 37 (7–52) | 9 (5.75-19) | 0.04 |
| Neonate death | 3 [4.7%] | 0 | 0.245 |
*means selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies
CC: cervical cerclage; LAC: laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage; sPTB: spontaneous preterm birth; GA: gestational age; VD: vaginal delivery; NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
The pregnancy outcomes of twin pregnancies
| TVC group | LAC group | |
|---|---|---|
| patients (n) | 46 | 7 |
| Prior sPTB | 0 (0–1) | 1 (1–2) |
| Prior operative hysteroscopy (n[%]) | 45 [97.8%] | 0 |
| Conception by IVF(n[%]) | 36 [78.3%] | 5 [71.4%] |
| Rescue cervical cerclage (n[%]) | 41 [89.1%] | - |
| The length of the cervix < 1.5 cm | 44 [95.7%] | - |
| The length of the cervix (cm) | 0.8 (0.5–1.5) | - |
| Cervical dilation at diagnosis (cm) | 0 (0–1) | - |
| Gestational latency (weeks) | 7.8 (4.9–11.5) | - |
| GA at delivery | 30.7 ± 4.5 | 34.3 ± 1.8 |
| sPTB < 24 weeks | 3 | 0 |
| sPTB < 28 weeks | 13 | 0 |
| sPTB < 32 weeks | 25 | 0 |
| sPTB < 34 weeks | 34 | 3 |
| sPTB < 37 weeks | 42 | 6 |
| Live births (n[%]) | 83 [90.2%] | 12 [100%] + 2* |
| Birth weight (kg) | 1.58 ± 0.65 | 2.1 ± 0.44 |
| NICU admission (n[%]) | 69 [83.1%] | 7 [58.3%] |
*means selective reduction of multifetal pregnancies
TVC: transvaginal cervical cerclage; LAC: laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage; sPTB: spontaneous preterm birth; IVF: In-Vitro Fertilization; GA: gestational age; NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit