Perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages

Aytaj Jafarzade , Sveta Aghayeva , Tamer M. Mungan , Aydan Biri , Elchin Jabiyev , Osman Ufuk Ekiz
{"title":"Perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages","authors":"Aytaj Jafarzade ,&nbsp;Sveta Aghayeva ,&nbsp;Tamer M. Mungan ,&nbsp;Aydan Biri ,&nbsp;Elchin Jabiyev ,&nbsp;Osman Ufuk Ekiz","doi":"10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aims to compare the perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages.</p></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study included a total of 247 patients, with a total of 142 emergency (with a history of mid-trimester miscarriage or vaginal delivery of &lt; 34 weeks and cervical length &lt; 25 mm) and 105 electives cerclage patients (with painless cervical dilation and cervical length &lt;25 mm) who had cerclage with the vaginal cervical McDonald technique between 1.1.2017–1.10.2022. Pregnant women with normal screening tests at weeks 11–14, normal fetal morphology, and singleton pregnancies were included in the study. The study was conducted in a tertiary center providing NICU care for &lt; 1500 g, less than 32 weeks of age, and on a mechanical ventilator. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were reviewed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding maternal age or BMI. It was observed that the week of delivery was greater for elective cerclages than for emergency cerclages (mean 34.6 GW versus 30.8 GW). The week of cerclage application was statistically higher in emergency cerclage (19.2 GW versus 16.3 GW p &lt; 0.000). In addition, when we evaluated perinatal complications: prenatal Ex (n34 vs. n8 p &lt; 0.001), C-reactive protein which is a marker of neonatal infection (12.7 mg/L vs. 2.5 mg/L p &lt; 0.022), antibiotic use in the NICU (n 35 vs. n23 p &lt; 0.050), the number of days of antibiotic use in the NICU (mean 15.3 days vs. 10.4 days p &lt; 0.024), rate of NICU intubation (n 27 vs. n 11 p &lt; 0.003), and neonatal sequelae (n 16 vs. n 6 p &lt; 0.016) were significantly higher in the emergency cerclage group than in the elective cerclage group. There was no found significant difference between the progesterone given and not given progesterone after the procedure in term of the weeks of delivery (<em>p &lt;</em> 0.810 emergency cervical cerclage; p &lt; 0681 elective cervical cerclage)</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Considering the available information, the results of elective cerclage seem to be more beneficial for the patient than those of emergency cerclage. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to perform elective cerclage in patients with mid-trimester or preterm miscarriage and concomitant cervical shortening before emergency cerclage is required. Furthermore, the benefit of progestin, in addition after surgical intervention, has not been established.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37085,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161323001023/pdfft?md5=3474c0a79d1b1646781303bc344b55af&pid=1-s2.0-S2590161323001023-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161323001023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to compare the perinatal outcomes of emergency and elective cervical cerclages.

Material and Methods

This retrospective study included a total of 247 patients, with a total of 142 emergency (with a history of mid-trimester miscarriage or vaginal delivery of < 34 weeks and cervical length < 25 mm) and 105 electives cerclage patients (with painless cervical dilation and cervical length <25 mm) who had cerclage with the vaginal cervical McDonald technique between 1.1.2017–1.10.2022. Pregnant women with normal screening tests at weeks 11–14, normal fetal morphology, and singleton pregnancies were included in the study. The study was conducted in a tertiary center providing NICU care for < 1500 g, less than 32 weeks of age, and on a mechanical ventilator. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were reviewed.

Results

There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding maternal age or BMI. It was observed that the week of delivery was greater for elective cerclages than for emergency cerclages (mean 34.6 GW versus 30.8 GW). The week of cerclage application was statistically higher in emergency cerclage (19.2 GW versus 16.3 GW p < 0.000). In addition, when we evaluated perinatal complications: prenatal Ex (n34 vs. n8 p < 0.001), C-reactive protein which is a marker of neonatal infection (12.7 mg/L vs. 2.5 mg/L p < 0.022), antibiotic use in the NICU (n 35 vs. n23 p < 0.050), the number of days of antibiotic use in the NICU (mean 15.3 days vs. 10.4 days p < 0.024), rate of NICU intubation (n 27 vs. n 11 p < 0.003), and neonatal sequelae (n 16 vs. n 6 p < 0.016) were significantly higher in the emergency cerclage group than in the elective cerclage group. There was no found significant difference between the progesterone given and not given progesterone after the procedure in term of the weeks of delivery (p < 0.810 emergency cervical cerclage; p < 0681 elective cervical cerclage)

Conclusion

Considering the available information, the results of elective cerclage seem to be more beneficial for the patient than those of emergency cerclage. Therefore, it would be more reasonable to perform elective cerclage in patients with mid-trimester or preterm miscarriage and concomitant cervical shortening before emergency cerclage is required. Furthermore, the benefit of progestin, in addition after surgical intervention, has not been established.

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
急诊和择期宫颈环扎术的围产期结果。
目的 本研究旨在比较急诊和择期宫颈环扎术的围产期结局。材料与方法本回顾性研究共纳入247例患者,其中急诊患者(有孕中期流产史或阴道分娩< 34周,宫颈长度< 25 mm)142例,择期宫颈环扎患者(无痛宫颈扩张,宫颈长度< 25 mm)105例,均在2017年1月1日-2022年10月1日期间采用阴道宫颈麦克唐纳技术进行宫颈环扎。在第 11-14 周筛查检查正常、胎儿形态正常、单胎妊娠的孕妇被纳入研究范围。该研究在一家为< 1500克、出生不足32周、使用机械呼吸机的新生儿重症监护室(NICU)提供护理的三级中心进行。结果两组产妇的年龄和体重指数无统计学差异。观察发现,选择性宫颈环扎的分娩周数大于急诊宫颈环扎(平均 34.6 GW 对 30.8 GW)。从统计学角度看,使用环扎术的周数在急诊环扎术中更高(19.2 GW 对 16.3 GW p <0.000)。此外,当我们评估围产期并发症时:产前检查(34 对 8 p < 0.001)、新生儿感染标志物 C 反应蛋白(12.7 mg/L 对 2.5 mg/L p < 0.022)、新生儿重症监护室抗生素使用(35 对 23 p < 0.050)、新生儿重症监护室抗生素使用天数(平均 15.3 天 vs. 10.4 天 p < 0.024)、新生儿重症监护室插管率(n 27 vs. n 11 p < 0.003)和新生儿后遗症(n 16 vs. n 6 p < 0.016),急诊环扎组明显高于择期环扎组。在分娩周数方面,术后给予黄体酮和不给予黄体酮没有发现明显差异(急诊宫颈环扎术 p < 0.810;选择性宫颈环扎术 p < 0681)。因此,在需要进行紧急宫颈环扎术之前,对中期流产或先兆流产并伴有宫颈缩短的患者进行选择性宫颈环扎术更为合理。此外,手术干预后额外使用孕激素的益处尚未确定。
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
58 days
期刊最新文献
Foeto–Maternal outcomes of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks of gestation after induced or spontaneous labour Editorial Board Epidemiology and placental pathology of intrauterine fetal demise in a tertiary hospital in the Philippines Perinatal outcomes in indian women with Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome (APS): Five year experience from a tertiary care centre Postmortem fertilization: New Italian government guidelines affirm the legitimacy of this procedure.
×
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