A Randomized Comparative Study between Second Trimester Cervical Cerclage and Observational Management on Duration of Pregnancy and Perinatal Outcome

suzan el sharkawy, omar khalil, abdulmoniem fawzy, ibrahim elmakhzangy
{"title":"A Randomized Comparative Study between Second Trimester Cervical Cerclage and Observational Management on Duration of Pregnancy and Perinatal Outcome","authors":"suzan el sharkawy, omar khalil, abdulmoniem fawzy, ibrahim elmakhzangy","doi":"10.21608/ebwhj.2023.244148.1267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cervical cerclage is a commonly performed intervention in the care of women at risk of preterm birth or second-trimester fetal loss to prevent preterm cervical dilatation. Aim: To compare the second trimester trans-vaginal cervical cerclage with conservative management on duration of pregnancy and perinatal outcome. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that included (40) pregnant females attending El-Shatby Maternity University Hospital antenatal care clinic. All cases of group A were subjected to planned cervical cerclage (McDonald) after the 14 th week of gestation by the same surgeon. All cases of group B were subjected to observational management. Both groups did urinalysis and high vaginal swab to detect and treat infection. All cases were subjected to trans-vaginal ultrasound scans at 14, 16 and 18 weeks then every month till delivery to assess viability, internal os diameter, cervical dilatation and length of the cervical canal. Also the time of delivery, process of labor, complications, and fetal outcome were recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in cervical length measurements between the two groups at the gestational ages of 14, 16, 18 and 36 weeks, while at 24, 28 and 32 weeks gestation, the cervical length was longer in group A than group B and this was statistically significant. Also, no statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding timing, termination mode, specific complications observed during pregnancy and labor. Conclusion : There is no evident role for a second trimester trans-vaginal cervical cerclage over conservative management on the duration of pregnancy and perinatal outcome.","PeriodicalId":12080,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Women's Health Journal","volume":"1625 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Women's Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ebwhj.2023.244148.1267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cervical cerclage is a commonly performed intervention in the care of women at risk of preterm birth or second-trimester fetal loss to prevent preterm cervical dilatation. Aim: To compare the second trimester trans-vaginal cervical cerclage with conservative management on duration of pregnancy and perinatal outcome. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial that included (40) pregnant females attending El-Shatby Maternity University Hospital antenatal care clinic. All cases of group A were subjected to planned cervical cerclage (McDonald) after the 14 th week of gestation by the same surgeon. All cases of group B were subjected to observational management. Both groups did urinalysis and high vaginal swab to detect and treat infection. All cases were subjected to trans-vaginal ultrasound scans at 14, 16 and 18 weeks then every month till delivery to assess viability, internal os diameter, cervical dilatation and length of the cervical canal. Also the time of delivery, process of labor, complications, and fetal outcome were recorded. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in cervical length measurements between the two groups at the gestational ages of 14, 16, 18 and 36 weeks, while at 24, 28 and 32 weeks gestation, the cervical length was longer in group A than group B and this was statistically significant. Also, no statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding timing, termination mode, specific complications observed during pregnancy and labor. Conclusion : There is no evident role for a second trimester trans-vaginal cervical cerclage over conservative management on the duration of pregnancy and perinatal outcome.
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
第二孕期宫颈环扎术与观察管理对妊娠持续时间和围产期结果的随机比较研究
背景:宫颈环扎术是对有早产或第二胎胎儿丢失风险的妇女进行护理时常用的干预措施,以防止宫颈提前扩张。目的:比较第二孕期经阴道宫颈环扎术与保守治疗对妊娠持续时间和围产儿结局的影响。材料与方法:这是一项随机对照临床试验,包括(40 名)到沙特比妇产大学医院产前护理门诊就诊的孕妇。A 组的所有病例均在妊娠 14 周后由同一位外科医生实施计划性宫颈环扎术(McDonald)。B 组的所有病例均接受观察管理。两组均进行了尿检和阴道拭子检查,以检测和治疗感染。所有病例均在 14、16 和 18 周时接受经阴道超声波扫描,然后每个月进行一次,直至分娩,以评估胎儿存活率、阴道口内径、宫颈扩张情况和宫颈管长度。此外,还记录了分娩时间、分娩过程、并发症和胎儿结局。结果在妊娠 14、16、18 和 36 周时,两组的宫颈长度测量结果差异无统计学意义,而在妊娠 24、28 和 32 周时,A 组的宫颈长度长于 B 组,且差异有统计学意义。此外,在时间、终止妊娠方式、妊娠期和分娩期观察到的特定并发症方面,各组之间也没有发现明显的统计学差异。结论:与保守治疗相比,第二孕期经阴道宫颈环扎术对妊娠持续时间和围产儿结局没有明显作用。
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
Nuchal translucency in pregnant women beyond 35 years and its relation to congenital cardiac abnormalities: A cross-section study Histopathological evaluation of products of conception in sporadic and recurrent abortions The Effect of Adding Vaginal Progesterone to Oral Omega-3 Fatty Acids on the Birth Weight of Constitutionally Small for Gestational Age Fetuses: A Randomized Clinical Trial Efficacy and Safety of Paracervical Block in Reducing Intrauterine Device Insertion Related Pain : A Randomized Controlled Trial Study of the Changes of Pulsatility Index (PI) in Uterine Artery in Patients with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss
×
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