Prophylactic cerclage for the prevention of preterm delivery

Progesterone, cerclage, pessary, or acetylsalicylic acid for prevention of preterm birth in singleton and multifetal pregnancies - A systematic review and meta-analyses

Background

Preterm birth is the leading cause of childhood mortality and morbidity. We aimed to provide a comprehensive systematic review on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on progesterone, cerclage, pessary, and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic women with singleton pregnancies defined as risk of preterm birth and multifetal pregnancies.

Methods

Six databases (including PubMed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library) were searched up to February 2022. RCTs published in English or Scandinavian languages were included through a consensus process. Abstracts and duplicates were excluded. The trials were critically appraised by pairs of reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Predefined outcomes including preterm birth, perinatal/neonatal/maternal mortality and morbidity, were pooled in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.4, stratified for high and low risk of bias trials. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guideline.

Results

The search identified 2,309 articles, of which 87 were included in the assessment: 71 original RCTs and 16 secondary publications with 23,886 women and 32,893 offspring. Conclusions were based solely on trials with low risk of bias (n = 50).Singleton pregnancies: Progesterone compared with placebo, reduced the risk of preterm birth <37 gestational weeks: 26.8% vs. 30.2% (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.82 [95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.71 to 0.95]) (high certainty of evidence, 14 trials) thereby reducing neonatal mortality and respiratory distress syndrome. Cerclage probably reduced the risk of preterm birth <37 gestational weeks: 29.0% vs. 37.6% (RR 0.78 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.88]) (moderate certainty of evidence, four open trials). In addition, perinatal mortality may be reduced by cerclage. Pessary did not demonstrate any overall effect. ASA did not affect any outcome, but evidence was based on one underpowered study.Multifetal pregnancies: The effect of progesterone, cerclage, or pessary was minimal, if any. No study supported improved long-term outcome of the children.

Conclusion

Progesterone and probably also cerclage have a protective effect against preterm birth in asymptomatic women with a singleton pregnancy at risk of preterm birth. Further trials of ASA are needed. Prevention of preterm birth requires screening programs to identify women at risk of preterm birth.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021234946].

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.

Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Cervical cerclage is a well-known surgical procedure carried out during pregnancy. It involves positioning of a suture (stitch) around the neck of the womb (cervix), aiming to give mechanical support to the cervix and thereby reduce risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure remains controversial. This is an update of a review last published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the use of cervical stitch in singleton pregnancy at high risk of pregnancy loss based on woman's history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical exam improves subsequent obstetric care and fetal outcome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials of cervical suturing in singleton pregnancies. Cervical stitch was carried out when the pregnancy was considered to be of sufficiently high risk due to a woman's history, a finding of short cervix on ultrasound or other indication determined by physical exam. We included any study that compared cerclage with either no treatment or any alternative intervention. We planned to include cluster-randomised studies but not cross-over trials. We excluded quasi-randomised studies. We included studies reported in abstract form only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes a total of 15 trials (3490 women); three trials were added for this update (152 women). Cerclage versus no cerclageOverall, cerclage probably leads to a reduced risk of perinatal death when compared with no cerclage, although the confidence interval (CI) crosses the line of no effect (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 10 studies, 2927 women; moderate quality evidence). Considering stillbirths and neonatal deaths separately reduced the numbers of events and sample size. Although the relative effect of cerclage is similar, estimates were less reliable with fewer data and assessed as of low quality (stillbirths RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75; 5 studies, 1803 women; low quality evidence; neonatal deaths before discharge RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.39; 6 studies, 1714 women; low quality evidence). Serious neonatal morbidity was similar with and without cerclage (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; 6 studies, 883 women; low-quality evidence). Pregnant women with and without cerclage were equally likely to have a baby discharged home healthy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.06; 4 studies, 657 women; moderate quality evidence).Pregnant women with cerclage were less likely to have preterm births compared to controls before 37, 34 (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89; 9 studies, 2415 women; high quality evidence) and 28 completed weeks of gestation.Five subgroups based on clinical indication provided data for analysis (history-indicated; short cervix based on one-off ultrasound in high risk women; short cervix found by serial scans in high risk women; physical exam-indicated; and short cervix found on scan in low risk or mixed populations). There were too few trials in these clinical subgroups to make meaningful conclusions and no evidence of differential effects. Cerclage versus progesteroneTwo trials (129 women) compared cerclage to prevention with vaginal progesterone in high risk women with short cervix on ultrasound; these trials were too small to detect reliable, clinically important differences for any review outcome. One included trial compared cerclage with intramuscular progesterone (75 women) which lacked power to detect group differences. History indicated cerclage versus ultrasound indicated cerclageEvidence from two trials (344 women) was too limited to establish differences for clinically important outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cervical cerclage reduces the risk of preterm birth in women at high-risk of preterm birth and probably reduces risk of perinatal deaths. There was no evidence of any differential effect of cerclage based on previous obstetric history or short cervix indications, but data were limited for all clinical groups. The question of whether cerclage is more or less effective than other preventative treatments, particularly vaginal progesterone, remains unanswered.

Effectiveness of progesterone, cerclage and pessary for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of infant death, but it is unclear which intervention is best to prevent it.

OBJECTIVES

To compare progesterone, cerclage and pessary, determine their relative effects and rank them.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science (to April 2016), without restrictions, and screened references of previous reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of progesterone, cerclage or pessary for preventing PTB in women with singleton pregnancies at risk as defined by each study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data by duplicate using a piloted form and performed Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses and pairwise meta-analyses. We rated evidence quality using GRADE, ranked interventions using SUCRA and calculated numbers needed to treat (NNT).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 trials (9425 women; 25 low risk of bias trials). Progesterone ranked first or second for most outcomes, reducing PTB < 34 weeks [odds ratio (OR) 0.44; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.22-0.79; NNT 9; low quality], <37 weeks (OR 0.58; 95% CrI 0.41-0.79; NNT 9; moderate quality), and neonatal death (OR 0.50; 95% CrI 0.28-0.85; NNT 35; high quality), compared with control, in women overall at risk. We found similar results in the subgroup with previous PTB, but only a reduction of PTB < 34 weeks in women with a short cervix. Pessary showed inconsistent benefit and cerclage did not reduce PTB < 37 or <34 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Progesterone was the best intervention for preventing PTB in singleton pregnancies at risk, reducing PTB < 34 weeks, <37 weeks, neonatal demise and other sequelae.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Progesterone was better than cerclage and pessary to prevent preterm birth, neonatal death and more in network meta-analysis.

Transvaginal cervical cerclage: evidence for perioperative management strategies

The objective was to review the evidence supporting various perioperative technical and management strategies for transvaginal cervical cerclage. We performed MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and COCHRANE searches with the terms, cerclage, cervical cerclage, cervical insufficiency, and randomized trials, plus each technical aspect (eg, suture, amniocentesis, etc) considered. The search spanned 1966 through September 2012 and was not restricted by language. Each retrieved manuscript was carefully evaluated, and any pertinent references from the reports were also obtained and reviewed. All randomized trials covering surgical and selected perioperative, nonsurgical aspects of cerclage were included in the review. The evidence was assessed separately for history-, ultrasound-, and physical examination-indicated cerclage. Evidence levels according to the new method outlined by the US Preventive Services Task Force were assigned based on the evidence. There are no grade A high-certainty recommendations regarding technical aspects of transvaginal cervical cerclage. Grade B moderate-certainty recommendations include performing a fetal ultrasound before cerclage to ensure fetal viability, confirm gestational age, and assess fetal anatomy to rule out clinically significant structural abnormalities; administering spinal, and not general, anesthesia; performing a McDonald cerclage, with 1 stitch, placed as high as possible; and outpatient setting. Unfortunately, no other recommendations can be made regarding the other technical aspects of cerclage.

Vaginal progesterone vs. cervical cerclage for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix, previous preterm birth, and singleton gestation: a systematic review and indirect comparison metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

No randomized controlled trial has compared vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage directly for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix in the mid trimester, singleton gestation, and previous spontaneous preterm birth. We performed an indirect comparison of vaginal progesterone vs cerclage using placebo/no cerclage as the common comparator.

STUDY DESIGN

Adjusted indirect metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Four studies that evaluated vaginal progesterone vs placebo (158 patients) and 5 studies that evaluated cerclage vs no cerclage (504 patients) were included. Both interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation and composite perinatal morbidity and mortality compared with placebo/no cerclage. Adjusted indirect metaanalyses did not show statistically significant differences between vaginal progesterone and cerclage in the reduction of preterm birth or adverse perinatal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Based on state-of-the-art methods for indirect comparisons, either vaginal progesterone or cerclage are equally efficacious in the prevention of preterm birth in women with a sonographic short cervix in the mid trimester, singleton gestation, and previous preterm birth. Selection of the optimal treatment needs to consider adverse events, cost and patient/clinician preferences.

Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether type of suture material affects cerclage efficacy for preterm birth (PTB) prevention.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a multicenter trial of ultrasound-indicated cerclage for short cervical length (CL), in which women with prior spontaneous PTB at 16-33 6/7 weeks, a singleton gestation and CL < 25 mm between 16-22 6/7 weeks, were randomized to McDonald cerclage or no cerclage. Outcomes of women who underwent cerclage were analyzed by type of suture material, comparing polyester braided thread (Mersilene™ or Ethibond™) to Mersilene tape™. Primary outcome was PTB < 35 weeks.

RESULTS

138 women underwent McDonald cerclage: 84 (61%) received polyester braided thread and 46 (33%) Mersilene tape™. Eight (6%) received monofilament suture and were excluded from analysis. Rates of PTB < 35 weeks were similar, 35% for polyester braided thread vs 24% for Mersilene tape™ (p = .24). Birth gestational age was also similar among the 2 groups (p = .18).

CONCLUSION

Type of suture material may not affect ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy in high-risk women with short CL, but further study is needed. Polyester braided thread (Mersilene™ or Ethibond™) and polyester braided Mersilene tape™ seem to have similar efficacy.

Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Cervical cerclage is a well-known surgical procedure carried out during pregnancy. It involves positioning of a suture (stitch) around the neck of the womb (cervix), aiming to give a mechanical support to the cervix and thereby reducing the risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the use of cervical stitch in singleton pregnancy at high risk of pregnancy loss based on a woman's history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical exam improves subsequent obstetric care and fetal outcome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2011) and reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials of cervical suturing in singleton pregnancies carried out when pregnancy was considered to be at sufficiently high risk of pregnancy loss for cerclage to be potentially indicated. We included any study that compared cerclage with either no treatment or any alternative intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials (involving 3328 women). When cerclage was compared with no treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in perinatal deaths (8.4% versus 10.7%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.00; eight trials, 2391 women) and neonatal morbidity (9.6% versus 10.2%) (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.43; four trials, 818 women), despite significant reduction in preterm births (average RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; nine trials, 2898 women). Cervical cerclage was associated with the higher rate of maternal side effects (vaginal discharge and bleeding, pyrexia) (average RR 2.25; 95% CI 0.89 to 5.69; three trials, 953 women). Caesarean section rates were significantly higher after cervical cerclage (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.40; 8 trials, 2817 women).There was no evidence of any important differences across all prespecified clinical subgroups (history-indicated, ultrasound-indicated)One study that compared cerclage with weekly intramuscular injections of 17 α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in women with a short cervix detected by transvaginal ultrasound, failed to reveal any obvious differences in obstetric and neonatal outcomes between the two management strategies.Two studies compared the benefits of performing cerclage based on previous history with cerclage, only if the cervix was found to be short on transvaginal ultrasound. There was no significant difference in any of the primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no treatment, cervical cerclage reduces the incidence of preterm birth in women at risk of recurrent preterm birth without statistically significant reduction in perinatal mortality or neonatal morbidity and uncertain long-term impact on the baby. Ceasarean section is more likely in women who had cervical suture inserted during pregnancy.The decision on how best to minimise the risk of recurrent preterm birth in women at risk, either because of poor history of a short or dilated cervix, should be 'personalised', based on the clinical circumstances, the skill and expertise of the clinical team and, most importantly, woman's informed choice.

Demographics and outcome of elective cerclage in a multi-ethnic London district general hospital

Elective cerclage is a rare procedure, but is reported to be relatively more common in developing countries. This variation in rate may be reflected in a multi-ethnic population as seen in London. Our study analysed the epidemiology and rate of elective cerclage performed in a London district general hospital. Factors contributing to the outcome of the procedures were also reviewed. A total of 41 elective cerclages were performed in the hospital between 2000 and 2007. Data from these were collected retrospectively, including maternal history, operative details, and gestational age at delivery. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis. Of the 41 cases, 19 pregnancies were carried to term (>or=37 weeks' gestation), nine were pre-term (24-36 weeks' gestation) and seven miscarried (<24 weeks' gestation); six cases had not yet delivered. All of the patients were immigrants from developing countries but ethnicity did not affect the operative outcome (p = 0.89, Fisher's exact). The other factors studied were also noted to have no significant impact on success. These included cervical length at insertion (p = 1.00, Fisher's exact), type of suture (p = 0.90, Fisher's exact) and average gestation at insertion (p = 0.20, Fisher's exact). In conclusion, all patients requiring intervention in this study originated from developing countries. This is a disproportionately high figure relative to the demographic breakdown of the study population. Such a finding may be due to geographical variation of risk factors for cervical incompetence but may also be influenced by observer bias. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the influence of ethnicity on the rate of elective cerclage. None of the variables analysed in this study significantly affected the outcome of the procedure.

Systematic review: Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss: individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several observational studies have claimed high success rates for cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency. A recent Cochrane review found no conclusive evidence of benefit, although significant heterogeneity was present for some of the important clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to examine effect of cerclage on neonatal and maternal outcomes. In an attempt to explain the heterogeneity, we investigated whether obstetric factors including multiple gestation are associated with effectiveness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search methods described in the original Cochrane review were adopted and updated to December 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This IPD systematic review and meta-analysis was of randomised trials comparing cervical cerclage during pregnancy with expectant management or no cerclage in women with confirmed or suspected as having cervical insufficiency.

ANALYSIS

Multilevel logistic regression models stratified by trial with random treatment effects were fitted to investigate the impact of obstetric factors and multiple gestation on treatment effect. Primary outcome measures were pregnancy loss or death before discharge from hospital and absence of neonatal morbidity.

MAIN RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven trials and 2091 randomised women. In singleton pregnancies, the reduction in pregnancy loss or death before discharge from hospital following cerclage failed to reach statistical significance (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.60-1.10). Cerclage was found to have a detrimental effect on the outcome of pregnancy loss or death before discharge from hospital in multiple gestations (OR 5.88; 95% CI 1.14-30.19), although only a small number of multiple pregnancies were included in the analysis. Neither indication for cerclage nor obstetric history was found to have a statistically significant impact on the effect of cerclage.

CONCLUSIONS

Cerclage may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss or neonatal death before discharge from hospital in singleton pregnancies thought to be at risk of preterm birth, but further large trials are needed to elucidate the risk-benefit ratio precisely. Cerclage in multiple pregnancies should be avoided. The efficacy of cerclage was not influenced by either indication for cerclage or mother's obstetric history.

Individual patient data meta-analysis : Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss in women

BACKGROUND: Cervical cerclage is a surgical procedure involving suturing the cervix with a purse type stitch to keep it closed during pregnancy. This procedure has been used widely in the management of pregnancies considered at high risk of preterm delivery. Several observational studies into the efficacy of cervical cerclage have claimed high rates of successful pregnancy outcome in women with a poor obstetric history attributed to cervical incompetence. However, a recent aggregate data Cochrane review found no such conclusive evidence from seven included randomised studies. Current data suggests that cervical cerclage is likely to benefit women considered to be 'at very high risk' of a second trimester miscarriage due to a cervical factor, however identifying such women remains elusive and many women may be treated unnecessarily. Undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of the studies will allow us to investigate whether treatment is more effective in particular subgroups. Such an analysis will also provide a more powerful analysis of the predictors of preterm delivery and pregnancy loss, including ultrasound measurement of cervical length, and will allow a more complete analysis of 'time to event' outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The analysis will include data from randomised trials comparing the intervention of elective cerclage versus no cerclage or bedrest to prevent miscarriage or pre-term labour. A specific list of data will be requested for each trial, including demographic and obstetric history data. The primary outcomes of interest will be neonatal mortality/morbidity. Attention will also be given to secondary outcomes such as time from randomisation to delivery, preterm delivery before 32 weeks and maternal morbidity. An intention to treat analysis will be performed, with attention paid to assessing clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Multilevel models with patients and trials as the two levels will be explored to investigate treatment effect on various outcomes. Patient-level covariates will be incorporated into the models in an attempt to account for statistical heterogeneity as well as to investigate interactions with treatment effect. DISCUSSION: Predictive models generated from our analysis should lead to more effective counselling of women at risk and a more cost effective use of cerclage.

Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss in women

BACKGROUND

A cervical stitch has been used to prevent preterm deliveries in women with previous second trimester pregnancy losses, or other risk factors such as short cervix on digital or ultrasound examination.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effectiveness and safety of prophylactic cerclage (before the cervix has dilated), emergency cerclage (where cervices have started to shorten and dilate) and then labour halted, and to determine whether a particular technique of stitch insertion is better than others.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group specialised register (July 2002). We handsearched congress proceedings of International and European society meetings of feto-maternal medicine, recurrent miscarriage and reproductive medicine. We contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing cervical cerclage with expectant management or no cerclage during pregnancy and trials comparing one technique with another or with other interventions were included. Quasi randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently used prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancy was resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Further clarification was sought from trial authors when required. Results were reported as relative risks using fixed or random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials with a total of 2175 women were analysed. Prophylactic cerclage was compared with no cerclage in four trials. There was no overall reduction in pregnancy loss and preterm delivery rates, although a small reduction in births under 33 weeks' gestation was seen in the largest trial (relative risks 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.98). Cervical cerclage was associated with mild pyrexia, increased use of tocolytic therapy and hospital admissions but no serious morbidity. Two trials examined the role of therapeutic cerclage when ultrasound examination revealed short cervix. Pooled results failed to show a reduction in total pregnancy loss, early pregnancy loss or preterm delivery before 28 and 34 weeks in women assigned to cervical cerclage.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The use of a cervical stitch should not be offered to women at low or medium risk of mid trimester loss, regardless of cervical length by ultrasound. The role of cervical cerclage for women who have short cervix on ultrasound remains uncertain as the numbers of randomised women are too few to draw firm conclusions. There is no information available as to the effect of cervical cerclage or its alternatives on the family unit and long term outcome.