Ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cervical cerclage in twin versus singleton gestations

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1111/jog.16263
Daphna Amitai Komem, Raanan Meyer, Itai Yagel, Daniel Shai, Roy Mashiach, Israel Hendler, Shali Mazaki-Tovi, Yoav Yinon
{"title":"Ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cervical cerclage in twin versus singleton gestations","authors":"Daphna Amitai Komem,&nbsp;Raanan Meyer,&nbsp;Itai Yagel,&nbsp;Daniel Shai,&nbsp;Roy Mashiach,&nbsp;Israel Hendler,&nbsp;Shali Mazaki-Tovi,&nbsp;Yoav Yinon","doi":"10.1111/jog.16263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound- and physical examination-indicated cervical cerclage in twin versus singleton gestations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective cohort study of all ultrasound-indicated (cervical length ≤ 25 mm) and physical examination-indicated cerclage cases performed over a 9-year period. The primary outcome was the time interval from cerclage placement to delivery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The study cohort included 94 singleton and 16 twin pregnancies. The time interval from cerclage placement to delivery was comparable in singleton and twin gestations (14.77 vs. 12.07 weeks, <i>p</i> = 0.11), as were the rates of preterm births before 28 and 32 weeks. The rate of alive newborns &gt;24 weeks was lower in the twin group (71.9% vs. 88.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.028). Regression analysis identified that cervical dilation, but not twin gestation, was the only factor independently associated with an increased risk for birth before 32 weeks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclage had comparable efficacy in prolonging pregnancy in twin and singleton gestations, though live birth rates were lower in twins.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":"51 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.16263","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound- and physical examination-indicated cervical cerclage in twin versus singleton gestations.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of all ultrasound-indicated (cervical length ≤ 25 mm) and physical examination-indicated cerclage cases performed over a 9-year period. The primary outcome was the time interval from cerclage placement to delivery.

Results

The study cohort included 94 singleton and 16 twin pregnancies. The time interval from cerclage placement to delivery was comparable in singleton and twin gestations (14.77 vs. 12.07 weeks, p = 0.11), as were the rates of preterm births before 28 and 32 weeks. The rate of alive newborns >24 weeks was lower in the twin group (71.9% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.028). Regression analysis identified that cervical dilation, but not twin gestation, was the only factor independently associated with an increased risk for birth before 32 weeks.

Conclusion

Ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclage had comparable efficacy in prolonging pregnancy in twin and singleton gestations, though live birth rates were lower in twins.

Abstract Image

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
双胎与单胎妊娠的超声指示和体检指示宫颈环切
目的比较超声和体检提示的宫颈环切术在双胎和单胎妊娠中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性队列研究所有超声指示(宫颈长度≤25mm)和体格检查指示的环切病例超过9年的时间。主要观察指标是从环扎置入到分娩的时间间隔。结果本研究纳入单胎妊娠94例,双胎妊娠16例。单胎妊娠和双胎妊娠从结扎放置到分娩的时间间隔相当(14.77周vs 12.07周,p = 0.11), 28周和32周前的早产率也是如此。双胞胎组24周新生儿存活率较低(71.9% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.028)。回归分析发现,宫颈扩张(而非双胎妊娠)是唯一与32周前分娩风险增加独立相关的因素。结论超声指示和体格检查指示的环切术对双胎和单胎妊娠的延长妊娠效果相当,但双胎的活产率较低。
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
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
376
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Elevated Risk of Endometrial Cancer and Precursor Lesions in Patients With Myotonic Dystrophy: A Retrospective Study at a Single Institution in Japan. Uterine Tumor Resembling Ovarian Sex Cord Tumor (UTROSCT) With a GREB1-NCOA2 Fusion: A Case Report and Diagnostic Considerations. Number of Authors in Japanese Obstetrics and Gynecology Case Reports: A Preliminary Observation. Comment on: Fertility Preservation in Extramedullary Plasmacytoma of the Uterine Cervix: Global Literature Synthesis and First Case From Iran-Proposing a Standardized 'Fertility-Risk Stratification Tool' for Young Patients With Rare Cervical Plasma Cell Neoplasms. The Prolapse Quality of Life Questionnaire Can Serve as an Assessment Tool for Urinary Storage Conditions in Patients With Pelvic Organ Prolapse Undergoing Transvaginal Mesh Surgery.
×
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:604180095
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