Arabin-pessary or McDonald Cerclage in Cervical Shortening?

Aytaj Jafarzade, Sveta Aghayeva, Tamer Mungan, Aydan Biri, Osman Ufuk Ekiz
{"title":"Arabin-pessary or McDonald Cerclage in Cervical Shortening?","authors":"Aytaj Jafarzade, Sveta Aghayeva, Tamer Mungan, Aydan Biri, Osman Ufuk Ekiz","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1776033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the present study is to compare the effectiveness of Arabin pessary and McDonald cervical cerclage on preterm delivery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from patients who underwent either Arabin pessary or McDonald cerclage between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2023. A total of 174 patients were included in the study, with 31 undergoing Arabin pessary and 143 receiving cervical cerclage using the McDonald technique in singleton pregnant women with cervical insufficiency, which applied between 14 and 22 gestational weeks. We included singleton pregnant women with normal morphology, and with normal combined test. The primary outcome was the impact of each method on preterm delivery (< 34 gestational weeks).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> The weeks of cervical cerclage or pessary application were compatible with each other (<i>p</i> < 0.680). The pessary group had a statistically significant longer time to delivery compared with the Cerclage group (cerclage group mean 30.8 c 7.1 standard deviation [SD] versus pessary group mean 35.1 ± 4.4 SD; <i>p</i> < 0.002). A statistically significant difference was found between the pessary and cerclage groups in terms of delivery at < 34 weeks (<i>p</i> = 0.002). In patients with cervical length between 25 and 15mm and < 15mm, no significant difference was found between the pessary and cerclage groups in terms of delivery week (<i>p</i> < 0.212; <i>p</i> < 0.149). Regardless of the technique applied, no statistically significant difference was observed between cervical length and birth < 34 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Our study found that pessary use for cervical insufficiency is statistically more effective than cervical cerclage surgery in preventing preterm births < 34 weeks in singleton pregnancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":74699,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1776033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study is to compare the effectiveness of Arabin pessary and McDonald cervical cerclage on preterm delivery.

Methods:  We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from patients who underwent either Arabin pessary or McDonald cerclage between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2023. A total of 174 patients were included in the study, with 31 undergoing Arabin pessary and 143 receiving cervical cerclage using the McDonald technique in singleton pregnant women with cervical insufficiency, which applied between 14 and 22 gestational weeks. We included singleton pregnant women with normal morphology, and with normal combined test. The primary outcome was the impact of each method on preterm delivery (< 34 gestational weeks).

Results:  The weeks of cervical cerclage or pessary application were compatible with each other (p < 0.680). The pessary group had a statistically significant longer time to delivery compared with the Cerclage group (cerclage group mean 30.8 c 7.1 standard deviation [SD] versus pessary group mean 35.1 ± 4.4 SD; p < 0.002). A statistically significant difference was found between the pessary and cerclage groups in terms of delivery at < 34 weeks (p = 0.002). In patients with cervical length between 25 and 15mm and < 15mm, no significant difference was found between the pessary and cerclage groups in terms of delivery week (p < 0.212; p < 0.149). Regardless of the technique applied, no statistically significant difference was observed between cervical length and birth < 34 weeks.

Conclusion:  Our study found that pessary use for cervical insufficiency is statistically more effective than cervical cerclage surgery in preventing preterm births < 34 weeks in singleton pregnancy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宫颈缩短术中使用 Arabin-pessary 还是 McDonald Cerclage?
目的本研究旨在比较阿拉伯栓和麦克唐纳宫颈环扎术对早产的效果:我们对2019年1月1日至2023年1月1日期间接受Arabin栓塞术或麦克唐纳宫颈环扎术的患者数据进行了回顾性分析。研究共纳入了 174 名患者,其中 31 人接受了阿拉宾栓塞术,143 人接受了麦克唐纳技术宫颈环扎术,这些患者均为宫颈机能不全的单胎孕妇,适用于孕周在 14 到 22 周之间的孕妇。我们纳入了形态正常和联合检查正常的单胎孕妇。主要结果是每种方法对早产(小于 34 孕周)的影响:宫颈环扎术或子宫环扎术的应用周数相互匹配(P P = 0.002)。宫颈长度在 25 至 15 毫米之间和 p p 结论:我们的研究发现,在预防早产方面,宫颈机能不全患者使用子宫颈塞比宫颈环扎术更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Syphilis and pregnancy. Immunosuppressants in women with repeated implantation failure in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multidisciplinary team training in postpartum hemorrhage: impact on the use of blood products. Neonatal and maternal outcomes of mRNA versus Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. A new screening of preterm birth in gestation with short cervix after pessary plus progesterone.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1