Tightening McDonald cerclage suture under sonographic guidance

Comparison of two stitches versus one stitch for emergency cervical cerclage to prevent preterm birth in singleton pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of two stitches versus one stitch in women with emergency cervical cerclage.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study of 26 women with singleton pregnancies who underwent emergency cervical cerclage before 26 weeks. A comparison was made between patients with two stitches versus one stitch at the time of cervical cerclage placement. The primary outcome was gestational age (GA) at delivery and preterm birth (PTB) before 37, 34, 32, 28, and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Average GA at delivery in the two-stitches group was significantly greater than in the one-stitch group (32.71 ± 5.54 weeks vs 27.99 ± 4.70 weeks, P = 0.028). There were significant decreases in the incidence of spontaneous PTB at <34 weeks and less than 32 weeks in the two-stitches group (P = 0.034; P = 0.013, respectively). The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions rate and length of stay in the NICU in the two-stitches group were significantly reduced (P = 0.035 and P = 0.018, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in neonatal mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with emergency cervical cerclage placement with one stitch, the procedure with two stitches can prolong the pregnancy and improve the neonatal prognosis more effectively.

Cervical stitch (cerclage) in combination with other treatments for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in singleton pregnancies

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance. In an attempt to prevent PTB in singleton pregnancies, cervical cerclage, in combination with other treatments, has been advocated. This is because, cervical cerclage is an intervention that is commonly recommended in women with a short cervix at high risk of preterm birth but, despite this, many women still deliver prematurely, as the biological mechanism is incompletely understood. Additionally, previous Cochrane Reviews have been published on the effectiveness of cervical cerclage in singleton and multiple pregnancies, however, none has evaluated the effectiveness of using cervical cerclage in combination with other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether antibiotics administration, vaginal pessary, reinforcing or second cerclage placement, tocolytic, progesterone, or other interventions at the time of cervical cerclage placement prolong singleton gestation in women at high risk of pregnancy loss based on prior history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical examination. History-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 12 and 15 weeks gestation based solely on poor prior obstetrical history, e.g. multiple second trimester losses due to painless dilatation. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation for transvaginal ultrasound cervical length < 20 mm in a woman without cervical dilatation. Physical exam-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation because of cervical dilatation of one or more centimetres detected on physical (manual) examination.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 September 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published, unpublished or ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCTs). Studies using a cluster-RCT design were also eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs (e.g. those randomised by date of birth or hospital number) and studies using a cross-over design. We also excluded studies that specified addition of the combination therapy after cervical cerclage because the woman subsequently became symptomatic. We included studies comparing cervical cerclage in combination with one, two or more interventions with cervical cerclage alone in singleton pregnancies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for this review's main outcomes. Data were checked for accuracy. Standard Cochrane review methods were used throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two studies (involving a total of 73 women) comparing cervical cerclage alone to a different comparator. We also identified three ongoing studies (one investigating vaginal progesterone after cerclage, and two investigating cerclage plus pessary). One study (20 women), conducted in the UK, comparing cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (salbutamol) with cervical cerclage alone in women with singleton pregnancy did not provide any useable data for this review. The other study (involving 53 women, with data from 50 women) took place in the USA and compared cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin or clindamycin) versus cervical cerclage alone - this study did provide useable data for this review (and the study authors also provided additional data on request) but meta-analyses were not possible. This study was generally at a low risk of bias, apart from issues relating to blinding. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for serious risk of bias and imprecision (few participants, few events and wide 95% confidence intervals). Cervical cerclage in combination with an antibiotic and tocolytic versus cervical cerclage alone (one study, 50 women/babies) We are unclear about the effect of cervical cerclage in combination with antibiotics and a tocolytic compared with cervical cerclage alone on the risk of serious neonatal morbidity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; very low-certainty evidence); perinatal loss (data for miscarriage and stillbirth only - data not available for neonatal death) (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth < 34 completed weeks of pregnancy (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.40; very low-certainty evidence). There were no stillbirths (intrauterine death at 24 or more weeks). The trial authors did not report on the numbers of babies discharged home healthy (without obvious pathology) or on the risk of neonatal death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of combining a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin/clindamycin) with cervical cerclage compared with cervical cerclage alone for preventing spontaneous PTB in women with singleton pregnancies. Future studies should recruit sufficient numbers of women to provide meaningful results and should measure neonatal death and numbers of babies discharged home healthy, as well as other important outcomes listed in this review. We did not identify any studies looking at other treatments in combination with cervical cerclage. Future research needs to focus on the role of other interventions such as vaginal support pessary, reinforcing or second cervical cerclage placement, 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or dydrogesterone or vaginal micronised progesterone, omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and bed rest.

Adjuvant 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in women with history-indicated cerclage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there are additional benefits of 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) supplementation in preventing recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in women with a prophylactic cerclage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, EMBASE, Scielo and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies published before June 2018. Keywords included "preterm birth", "prophylactic cerclage", "history-indicated cerclage", "pregnancy" and "17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate". Studies comparing history-indicated cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC were included. The primary outcome measure was preterm birth at <24 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcome measures include preterm birth at <28 weeks, <32 weeks and <37 weeks of gestation, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, fetal birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit stay, mean gestational age at delivery, fetal/neonatal death, neurological morbidity (intraventricular hemorrhage plus periventricular leukomalacia), neonatal sepsis and a composite of severe neonatal morbidity. Severe neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite measure of periventricular leukomalacia, intraventricular hemorrhage (grades III and IV), necrotizing enterocolitis or respiratory distress syndrome. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. Risk of bias and quality assessment were performed using the ROBINS-I and GRADE tools, respectively. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018094559.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Of the 546 women, 357 (75%) received history-indicated cerclage alone and 189 (35%) received adjuvant 17-OHPC. The composite endpoint, severe neonatal morbidity, was present in 84 of 1515 neonates. Though there was a trend toward a reduced risk of preterm birth, the summary estimate of effect was not statistically significant when comparing cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC at <24 weeks (relative risk [RR] .86, 95% confidence interval [CI] .45-1.65). Similarly, we found no differences in preterm birth at <37 weeks (RR .90, 95% CI .70-1.17) and <28 weeks (RR .85, 95% CI .54-1.32) when comparing cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC. There were no differences in fetal birthweight, respiratory distress syndrome or necrotizing enterocolitis comparing cerclage alone with cerclage+17-OHPC.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular 17-OHPC in combination with prophylactic cerclage in women with prior preterm birth had no synergistic effect in reducing spontaneous recurrent preterm birth or improving perinatal outcomes.

Double versus single cervical cerclage for patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of the double cervical cerclage method versus the single method in women with recurrent second-trimester delivery.

METHOD

In this randomized clinical trial, we included 33 singleton pregnancies suffering from recurrent second-trimester pregnancy loss (≥2 consecutive fetal loss during second-trimester or with a history of unsuccessful procedures utilizing the McDonald method), due to cervical incompetence. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either the classic McDonald method (n = 14) or the double cerclage method (n = 19). The successful pregnancy rate and gestational age at delivery was also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two study groups were comparable regarding their baseline characteristics. The successful pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between those who underwent the double cerclage method or the classic McDonald cerclage method (100% vs 85.7%; P = 0.172). In the same way, the preterm delivery rate (<34 weeks of gestation) was comparable between the two study groups (10.5% vs 35.7%; P = 0.106). Those undergoing the double cerclage method had longer gestational duration (37.2 ± 2.6 vs 34.3 ± 3.8 weeks; P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The double cervical cerclage method seems to provide better cervical support, as compared with the classic McDonald cerclage method, in those suffering from recurrent pregnancy loss, due to cervical incompetence.