The prevalence and timing of cervical cerclage placement in multiple gestations
Objectives: To investigate the prevalence and timing of cervical cerclage placement in multiple gestations. Methods: Our perinatal database was queried for all multiple gestations delivered at Evanston Hospital from 12/95 through 12/00. This list was then cross-matched with billing and medical recor...
Saved in:
| Published in: | International journal of gynecology and obstetrics Vol. 80; no. 2; pp. 123 - 127 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Shannon
Elsevier Ireland Ltd
01-02-2003
Elsevier Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Objectives: To investigate the prevalence and timing of cervical cerclage placement in multiple gestations.
Methods: Our perinatal database was queried for all multiple gestations delivered at Evanston Hospital from 12/95 through 12/00. This list was then cross-matched with billing and medical records for ‘incompetent cervix’ and ‘cerclage.’ The medical records of all deliveries ≤26 weeks were reviewed in order to ascertain if cervical incompetence was responsible for the preterm delivery.
Results: There were 802 deliveries of multiple gestations ≥14 weeks over a 5-year period. The number of patients that underwent cerclage placement was 29 or 3.6%. The mean gestational age at cerclage placement was 18.6±4.5 weeks (range 11–24.6). Twelve were elective or prophylactic while 17 were ‘urgent’ or ‘emergent.’ The mean gestational age for the 17 emergent cerclages was 21.4±2.2 weeks (range 16.6–24.6). When compared with those patients who did not undergo cerclage placement, there was no difference in maternal demographics including age, parity, or previous full-term delivery. There was a significant difference in the gestational age at delivery for the cerclage vs. no cerclage group; 29.3±5.6 vs. 34.4±4.6 weeks, respectively, and in the frequency of losses at ≤26 weeks; 8/23 (38%) vs. 48/707 (6.8%),
P<0.001. Ten of the losses in the no cerclage group appeared consistent with incompetent cervix for a total of 39/802 or 4.9% rate of cervical incompetence in our multiple gestation population.
Conclusions: The relatively low prevalence of cervical incompetence in our multiple gestations does not justify prophylactic cervical cerclage placement. Expectant management with serial cervical examinations starting at 16–18 weeks appears more prudent. |
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 0020-7292 1879-3479 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00340-5 |