Hulshoff CC, Hofstede A, Inthout J, Scholten RR, Spaanderman MEA, Wollaars H, van Drongelen J. The effectiveness of transabdominal cerclage placement via laparoscopy or laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2023;
5:100757. [PMID:
36179967 DOI:
10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100757]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Failure or technical impossibility to place a prophylactic transvaginal cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency justifies the need for an abdominal cerclage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we studied the obstetrical and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage approaches performed before (interval) or during pregnancy.
DATA SOURCES
We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies on laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placement in February 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
All studies on laparoscopic or open laparotomy placement of an abdominal cerclage with at least 2 patients that reported on our primary outcomes were included.
METHODS
All included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias with an adjusted Quality in Prognosis Study tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary outcomes, namely fetal survival and gestational age at delivery.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 83 studies with a total of 3398 patients; 1869 of those underwent laparoscopic cerclage placement and 1529 underwent open laparotomy placements. No studies directly compared the 2 cerclage approaches. The survival (overall, 91.2%) and gestational age at delivery (overall, 36.6 weeks) were not statistically different between the approaches. For the procedure during pregnancy, the laparoscopic group showed significantly less blood loss >400 mL (0% vs 3%), a slightly lower procedure-related fetal loss (0% vs 1%), a shorter hospital stay but a longer operation duration than the open laparotomy group. For the interval cerclages, the laparoscopic group showed significantly fewer wound infections (0% vs 3%) and a shorter hospital stay than the open laparotomy group, but showed comparable offspring preterm birth and survival rates.
CONCLUSION
Based on indirect comparisons, the laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placements at interval or during pregnancy produced similar outcomes in terms of survival and gestational age at delivery. There are some small differences in perioperative care, surgical complications, interventions, and complications during pregnancy. This implies that both methods of abdominal cerclage placement have high success rates and thus we cannot conclude that one of the methods is superior for the placement of an abdominal cerclage.
Collapse