Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of cerclage failure in patients with singleton pregnancy undergoing prophylactic cervical cerclage

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 05 March 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

The role of cervical cerclage to prevent preterm birth (PTB) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors for cerclage failure among singleton pregnant women following prophylactic cerclage (PC).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of PC was performed in a single center. The main outcome measure was cerclage failure, defined by spontaneous early PTB prior to 32 weeks’ gestation. Age, BMI, history of instrumentation of the uterus, history of second trimester miscarriage, previous conization, positive vaginal swab prior cerclage, gestational age at time of cerclage, CRP 1 week after cerclage and post-cerclage US changes of cervical length were tested as predictive factors. Descriptive statistical and binary logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

141 women underwent cerclage procedures between 2007 and 2016. 39 patients had PC with McDonald suture, singleton pregnancy and complete clinical follow-up information, thus fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Multivariate analysis showed that history of instrumentation of the uterus was the only independent prognostic factor [OR = 0.14 (0.03, 0.72) p = 0.019] for cerclage failure.

Conclusion

This is the first study showing that a history of previous uterine instrumentation is an independent predictor of cerclage failure. This finding has significant clinical implications for women of childbearing age, particularly when management of miscarriage/abortion is being considered. Women should be informed about the potential risks when counseled prior to surgical evacuation and medical management or cervical ripening should be considered. These results are also helpful in counseling patients undergoing cerclage, when a prior uterine instrumentation has been performed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 05 March 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The presentation of Table 3 was incorrect. The corrected Table 3 is given below.

References

  1. Noori M, Helmig RB, Hein M, Steer PJ (2007) Could a cervical occlusion suture be effective at improving perinatal outcome? BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 114:532–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Abbott D, To M, Shennan A (2012) Cervical cerclage: a review of current evidence. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 52:220–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berghella V, Odibo AO, To MS, Rust OA, Althuisius SM (2005) Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol 106:181–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jorgensen AL, Alfirevic Z, Tudur Smith C, Williamson PR, cerclage IPDM-aG (2007) Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss: individual patient data meta-analysis. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 114:1460–1476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sneider K, Christiansen OB, Sundtoft IB, Langhoff-Roos J (2017) Recurrence rates after abdominal and vaginal cerclages in women with cervical insufficiency: a validated cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:859–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ragab A, Mesbah Y (2015) To do or not to do emergency cervical cerclage (a rescue stitch) at 24–28 weeks gestation in addition to progesterone for patients coming early in labor? A prospective randomized trial for efficacy and safety. Arch Gynecol Obstet 292:1255–1260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hui SY, Chor CM, Lau TK, Lao TT, Leung TY (2013) Cerclage pessary for preventing preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix at 20–24 weeks: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Perinatol 30:283–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bolla D, Gasparri ML, Badir S, Bajka M, Mueller MD, Papadia A, Raio L (2017) Cervical length after cerclage: comparison between laparoscopic and vaginal approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:885–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haram K, Mortensen JHS, Wollen AL (2003) Preterm delivery: an overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:687–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Costeloe K, Group EPS (2006) EPICure: facts and figures: why preterm labour should be treated. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 113(Suppl 3):10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C, Rodo C, Valle L, Romero A, Juan M, Rodriguez A, Munoz B, Santacruz B, Bello-Munoz JC, Llurba E, Higueras T, Cabero L, Carreras E, Cervical Pesario, para Evitar Prematuridad Trial G (2012) Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1800–1806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yim HJ, Song JE, Kim JE, Son GH, Lee KY (2016) Preoperative and postoperative serum C-reactive protein levels to predict the outcome of ultrasound-indicated cerclage. Obstet Gynecol Sci 59:97–102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Owen J, Hankins G, Iams JD, Berghella V, Sheffield JS, Perez-Delboy A, Egerman RS, Wing DA, Tomlinson M, Silver R, Ramin SM, Guzman ER, Gordon M, How HY, Knudtson EJ, Szychowski JM, Cliver S, Hauth JC (2009) Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(375):e371–e378

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berghella V, Odibo AO, Tolosa JE (2004) Cerclage for prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix found on transvaginal ultrasound examination: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1311–1317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Song RK, Cha HH, Shin MY, Choi SJ, Oh SY, Kim JH, Roh CR (2016) Post-cerclage ultrasonographic cervical length can predict preterm delivery in elective cervical cerclage patients. Obstet Gynecol Sci 59:17–23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Guzman ER, Houlihan C, Vintzileos A, Ivan J, Benito C, Kappy K (1996) The significance of transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix in women treated with emergency cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:471–476

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Drassinower D, Vink J, Zork N, Pessel C, Vani K, Brubaker SG, Ananth CV (2016) Does the rate of cervical shortening after cerclage predict preterm birth? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29:2233–2239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Owen J, Szychowski J (2009) Association between post-randomization sonographic cervical length and birth gestational age in a multicenter trial of ultrasound-indicated cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201:S197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dijkstra K, Funai EF, O’Neill L, Rebarber A, Paidas MJ, Young BK (2000) Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 96:346–350

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lemmers M, Verschoor MA, Hooker AB, Opmeer BC, Limpens J, Huirne JA, Ankum WM, Mol BW (2016) Dilatation and curettage increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 31:34–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berger TM, Bernet V, El Alama S, Fauchere JC, Hosli I, Irion O, Kind C, Latal B, Nelle M, Pfister RE, Surbek D, Truttmann AC, Wisser J, Zimmermann R (2011) Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland 2011 Revision of the Swiss recommendations. Swiss Med Wkly 141:w13280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Ma’ani W, Solomayer E-F, Hammadeh M (2014) Expectant versus surgical management of first-trimester miscarriage: a randomised controlled study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:1011–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Obstetrics, University Hospital Bern, 3010, Bern, Switzerland

    K. Taghavi, M. L. Gasparri, D. Bolla & D. Surbek

Authors
  1. K. Taghavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. L. Gasparri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Bolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Surbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Protocol/project development: DS and DB, Data collection or management: KT, Data analysis: MLG, Manuscript writing/editing: KT, DS, DB and MLG

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Taghavi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author 1, K Taghavi, declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author 2, ML Gasparri declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author 3, D Bolla, declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author 4, D Surbek, declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Funding

Nil.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee as well as the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4727-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taghavi, K., Gasparri, M.L., Bolla, D. et al. Predictors of cerclage failure in patients with singleton pregnancy undergoing prophylactic cervical cerclage. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297, 347–352 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4600-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4600-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation