Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:28:01.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Cervical Insufficiency

from Part I - ANTEPARTUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

John Patrick O'Grady
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Munir A. Nazir
Affiliation:
Director Maternal-Fetal Medicine Assessment Laboratory, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Newark Beth Israel Medical Center Newark, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews the problem of cervical change and cervical insufficiency as related to preterm delivery. Recommendations for surveillance and best practice are made, and the principal surgical procedures for cervical reinforcement (cerclage) are discussed and critiqued. Endovaginal sonography is the best method for the evaluation of women at risk for preterm delivery or cervical insufficiency during pregnancy. Late and uncommon complications of cerclage include fistula formation and, rarely, cervical stenosis. Cicatrix formation can result in cervical dystocia in labor or eventuate in deep cervical lacerations at delivery, which can extend into the broad ligament. Cervical cerclages are best classified based on their timing and the anatomic approach taken for the repair. In terms of timing, these procedures are considered as elective, urgent, or emergent. The current approach to the placement of cerclage is most often transvaginal, and most procedures are performed during pregnancy.
Type
Chapter
Information
Operative Obstetrics , pp. 89 - 118
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Riviére, L, Culpeper, N, Cole, A, Rowland, W.On barrenness. In The Practice of Physick, Book 15. London: Peter Cole, 1658;131, p. 916.Google Scholar
Gream, GT.Dilatation or division of the cervix uteri. Lancet. 1865;1:381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmet, TA.Laceration of the cervix uteri as a frequent and unrecognized cause of disease. Am J Obstet. 1874;7:442.Google Scholar
Herman, GE.Notes on Emmet operation as a prevention of abortion. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1902;2:256–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, R, Lacomme, M.La béance de l'orifice interne, cause d'avortements á repetition? Une observation de dechirure cervico-isthmique reparée chirurgicalement, avec gestation terme consecutif. [Is gaping of the internal cervical orifice a cause of reported abortion? An observation of surgical repair of cervico-isthmic gaping with subsequent term gestation] Gynecol Obstet. 1948;47:905–909.Google Scholar
Lash, AF, Lash, SR. Habitual abortion: The incompetent internal os of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1950 Jan; 59(1):68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirodkar, VN: A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy. Antisep. 1955;52:299–300.Google Scholar
Iams, JD, Johnson, FF, Sonek, JD, Sachs, L, Gebauer, C, Samuels, P.Cervical competence as a continuum: A study of ultrasonographic cervical length and obstetric performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Apr; 172(4 Pt. 1):1097–1103, discussion 1104–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilstrap, LC 3rd, Cunningham, FG, VanDorsten, JP, editors. Operative Obstetrics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002, pp. 503–522.Google Scholar
Danforth, DN, Buckingham, JC, Roddick, JW Jr.Connective tissue changes incident to cervical effacement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960 Nov;80:939–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, DP.Incompetent cervix in offspring exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Jul;52(1 Suppl):73S–75S.Google Scholar
Cousins, L, Karp, W, Lacey, C, Lucas, WE.Reproductive outcome of women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Jul;56(1):70–76.Google Scholar
Ludmir, J, Landon, MB, Gabbe, SG, Samuels, P, Mennuti, MT.Management of the diethylstilbestrol-exposed pregnant patient: A prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Sept;157(3):665–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, J, Langhoff-Roos, J, Kristensen, FB: Increased risk of preterm birth in women with cervical conization. Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Jun;81(6):1005–1008.Google Scholar
Moinian, M, Andersch, B.Does cervix conization increase the risk of complications in subsequent pregnancies?Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61(2):101–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buller, RE, Jones, HW 3rd. Pregnancy following cervical conization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Mar 1;142(1):506–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daling, JR, Emanuel, I.Induced abortions and subsequent outcome of pregnancy in a series of American women. N Engl J Med. 1977 Dec 8;297(23):1241–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raio, LGhezzi, F, Diaro, E, Gomez, R, Luscher, KP.Duration of pregnancy after carbon dioxide laser conization of the cervix: Influence of cone height. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(6):978–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, EC, McLarn, WD, Hayt, DB.The physiology and clinical significance of the uterine isthmus. I. The two-stage intrauterine balloon in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical incompetence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Feb;81:209–222.Google Scholar
Iams, JD, Goldenberg, RL, Meis, PJ, Mercer, BM, Moawad, A, Das, A, Thom, E, McNellis, D, Copper, RL, Johnson, F, Roberts, JM.The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med. 1996 Feb;334(9):567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harger, JH: Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures. Obstet Gynecol 1980 Nov;56(5):543–548.Google Scholar
Odibo, AO, Berghella, V, To, MS, Rust, OA, Althuisius, SM, Nicolaides, KH.Shirodkar versus McDonald cerclage for the prevention of pretem birth in women with short cervical length. Am J Perinatol. 2007 Jan;24(1): 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 48. Cervical Insufficiency. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Nov;102(5 Pt 1):1091–1099.
Sonek, JD, Iams, JD, Blumenfeld, M, Johnson, F, Landon, M, Gabbe, S.Measurement of cervical length in pregnancy: Comparison between vaginal ultrasonography and digital examination. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Aug;76(2):172–175.Google Scholar
Heath, VC, Southall, TR, Souka, AP, Elisseou, A, Nicolaides, KH.Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: Prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Nov;12(5):312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oven, J, Yost, N, Berghella, V, Thom, E, Swain, M, Dildy, GA.Midtrimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. JAMA. 2001 Sept 19;286(11):1340–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, ER, Rosenberg, JC, Houlihan, C, Ivan, J, Waldron, R, Knuppel, R.A new method using vaginal ultrasound and transfundal pressure to evaluate the asymptomatic incompetent cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jul;83(2):248–252.Google Scholar
Althuisias, S, Dekker, G: Controversies regarding cervical incompetence, short cervix, and the need for cerclage. Clin Perinatol. 2004 Dec;31(4):695–720, v–vi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbard, JU, Tart, M, Moawad, AH.Cervical length at 16–22 weeks' gestation and risk for preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Dec;96(6):972–978.Google Scholar
Berghella, V, Tolosa, JE, Kuhlman, K, Weiner, S, Bolognese, RJ, Wapner, RJ.Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Oct;177(4):723–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, SS, Romero, R, Berry, SM, Dang, K, Blackwell, SC, Treadwell, MC, Wolfe, HM.Patients with an ultrasonographic cervical length ≤15 mm have nearly a 50% risk of early spontaneous preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;182(6):1458–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, WW, Copper, R, Hauth, JC, Goldenberg, RL, Neely, C, Dubard, M.Second-trimester cervical ultrasound: Association with increased risk for recurrent early spontaneous delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Feb;95(2):222–226.Google Scholar
Harger, JH.Cervical cerclage: Patient selection, morbidity, and success rates. Clin Perinatol. 1983 Jun;10(2):321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Interim report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomized trial of cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 May;95(5):437–445.
Althuisius, SM, Dekker, GA, Hummel, P, Bekedam, DJ, Geijn, HP.Final results of the Cervical Incompetence Prevention Randomized Cerclage Trial (CIPRACT): Therapeutic cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;185(5):1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rust, OA, Atlas, RO, Reed, J, Gaalen, J, Balducci, J.Revisiting the short cervix detected by transvaginal ultrasound in the second trimester: Why cerclage therapy may not help. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;185(5):1098–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drakeley, AJ, Roberts, D, Alfirevic, Z.Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berghella, V, Odibo, AO, To, MS, Rust, OA, Althuisius, SM.Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: Meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;106(1):181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iams, JD, Paraskos, J, Landon, MB, Teteris, JN, Johnson, FF: Cervical sonography in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jul;84(1):40–46.Google Scholar
Schaffner, F, Schanzer, SN: Cervical dilatation in the early third trimester. Obstet Gynecol. 1966 Jan;27(1):130–133.Google Scholar
Pereira, L, Levy, C, Lewis, D, Berghella, V.Effect of suture material on the outcome of emergent cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(4):35s.Google Scholar
Rust, OA, Atlas, RO, Meyn, J, Wells, M, Kimmel, S.Does cerclage location influence perinatal outcome?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1688–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
To, MS, Palaniappan, V, Skentou, C, Gibb, D, Nicolaides, KH.Elective cerclage vs. ultrasound-indicated cerclage in high-risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 May;19(5):475–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rust, OA, Roberts, WE.Does cerclage prevent preterm birth?Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2005 Sep;32(3):441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, S, Pollock, M, Maas, B, Lefebvre, C, Manley, J, Sciscione, A.Early transvaginal ultrasonography versus early cerclage in women with an unclear history of incompetent cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 May;184(6):1097–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berghella, V, Haas, S, Chervoneva, I, Hyslop, T.Patients with prior second-trimester loss: Prophylactic cerclage or serial transvaginal sonogram. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Sept. 187(3):747–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novy, MJ, Gupta, A, Wothe, DD, Gupta, S, Kennedy, KA, Gravett, MG.Cervical cerclage in the second trimester of pregnancy: A historical cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;184(7):1447–1456, discussion 1454–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chasen, ST, Silverman, NS.Mid-trimester emergent cerclage: A ten-year single institution review. J Perinatol. 1998 Sep–Oct;18(5):338–342.Google Scholar
Olatunbosun, OA, al-Nuaim, L, Turnell, RW.Emergency cerclage compared with bed rest for advanced cervical dilatation in pregnancy. Int Surg. 1995 Apr–Jun;80(2):170–174.Google Scholar
Althuisius, SM, Dekker, GA, Hummel, P, Geijn, HP.Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial: Emergency cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;189(4):907–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novy, MJ: Transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage: A reappraisal 25 years after its introduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jun;164(6 Pt 1):1635–1641; discussion 1641–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, J, Tressler, T, Martinez, F.Elective and emergency transabdominal cervicoisthmus cerclage for cervical incompetence. J Reprod Med. 2003 Aug;48(8):596–600.Google Scholar
Bensen, RC, Durfee, RB.Transabdominal cervicouterine cerclage during pregnancy for the treatment of cervical incompetency. Obstet Gynecol. 1965 Feb;25:145–155.Google Scholar
Al-Fadhli, R, Tolandi, T.Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep; 31(3):497–504, viii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mingione, MJ, Scibetta, J, Sanko, SR, Phipps, WR.Clinical outcomes following interval laparoscopic transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage placement: Case series. Hum Reprod. 2003 Aug;18(8):1716–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, M, Abrahams, C.Transvaginal placement of cervicoisthmic cerclage: Report on pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;192(6):1989–1992; discussion 1992–1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, C.An aid to cervical cerclage. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 May;13(2):114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olatunbosun, OA, Dyck, F.Cervical cerclage operation for a dilated cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Feb;57(2):166–170.Google Scholar
Goodlin, RC.Cervical incompetence, hourglass membranes, and amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol. 1979 Dec;54(6):748–750.Google Scholar
Scheerer, LJ, Lam, F, Bartolucci, L, Katz, M.A new technique for reduction of prolapsed fetal membranes for emergency cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Sep;74(3 Pt 1):408–410.Google Scholar
Hefner, JD, Patow, WE, Ludwig, JM.A new surgical procedure for the correction of the incompetent cervix during pregnancy: The Wurm Procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Nov;18:616–620.Google Scholar
Page, EW.Incompetent internal os of the cervix causing late abortion and premature labor. Technique for surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 1958 Nov;12(5):509–515.Google Scholar
Vitsky, M.Simple treatment of the incompetent cervical os. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Jun;81:1194–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oster, S, Javert, CT.Treatment of the incompetent cervix with the Hodge pessary. Obstet Gynecol. 1966 Aug;28(2):206–208.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K, Thorpe, JM Jr, McDonald, TL, Savitz, DA, Granados, JL.Cervical dimensions and risk of preterm birth: A prospective cohort study. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Apr;93(4):504–509.Google Scholar
Lockwood, CJ: The diagnosis of preterm labor and the prediction of preterm delivery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Dec;38(4):675–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiman, G, Harrison, NA, Rubin, A.Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: Complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Jan 1;136(1):14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, ME, Flannelly, G, Campbell, DM, Kitchener, HC.Fertility and pregnancy outcome following large-loop excision of cervical transformation zone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Jun;102(6):467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
To, MS, Alfirevic, Z, Heath, VC, Cicero, S, Cacho, AM, Williamson, PR, NicholaidesKH, KH,Fetal Medicine Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: Randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004 June 5;363(9424):1849–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imseis, HM, Albert, TA, Iams, JD.Identifying twin gestations at low risk for preterm birth with a transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement at 24 to 26 weeks' gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Nov;177(5):1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durnwald, CP, Walker, H, Lundy, JC, Iams, JD.Rates of recurrent preterm birth by obstetrical history and cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;193(3 Pt 2):1170–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iams, JD, Goldenberg, RL, Mercer, BM, Moawad, A, Thom, E, Meis, PJ, McNellis, D, Caritis, SN, Miodovnik, M, Menard, MK, Thurnau, GR, Bottoms, SE, Roberts, JM.The Preterm Prediction Study: Recurrence risk of spontaneous preterm birth. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;178(5):1035–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, AS, Rebarber, A, Pereira, L, Sfakianaki, AK, Mulholland, J, Berghella, V.The efficacy of sonographically indicated cerclage in multiple gestations. J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Jun;24(6):763–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubovits, FE, Cooperman, NR, Lash, AF.Habitual abortion: A radiographic technique to demonstrate the incompetent internal os of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1953;66:269–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiwi, R, Neuman, MR, Merkatz, IR, Selim, MA, Lysikiewicz, A.Determination of the elastic properties of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Apr;71(4):568–574.Google Scholar
Anthony, GS, Calder, AA, MacNaughton, MC.Cervical resistance in patients with previous spontaneous mid-trimester abortion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 Dec;89(12):1046–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushnir, O, Vigil, DA, Izquierdo, L, Schiff, M, Curet, LB.Vaginal ultrasonographic assessment of cervical length changes during normal pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Apr;162(4):991–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okitsu, O, Mimura, T, Nakayama, T, Aono, T.Early prediction of preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Nov;2(6):402–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yost, NP, Owen, J, Berghella, V, MacPherson, C, Swain, M, Dildy, GA 3rd, Miodovnik, M, Langer, O, Sibai, B.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Second-trimester cervical sonography: Features other than cervical length to predict spontaneous preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drakeley, AJ, Roberts, D, Alfirevic, Z.Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery: Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Sep;102(3):621–627. Review. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;103(1):201.Google Scholar
Honest, H, Coomarasamy, A, Bachmann, LM, Khan, KS.Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery: Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):584–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daskalakis, G, Papantoniou, N, Mesogitis, S, Antsaklis, A.Management of cervical insufficiency and bulging fetal membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;107(2 Pt 1):221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, RW, Isaacs, S, McPherson, K, Jones, L, Chalmers, I, Grant, A.A randomized controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984 Aug;91(8):724–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazar, P, Gueguen, S, Dreyfus, J, Renaud, R, Pontonnier, G, Papiernik, E.Multicentred controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at moderate risk of preterm delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984 Aug;91(8):731–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dor, J, Shalev, J, Mashiach, S, Blankstein, J, Serr, DM.Elective cervical suture of twin pregnancies diagnosed ultrasonically in the first trimester following induced ovulation. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1982;13(1):55–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harger, JH.Cerclage and cervical insufficiency: An evidence-based analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;100(6):1313–1327. Review. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;101(1):205.Google Scholar
Atrash, HK, Hogue, CJ.The effect of pregnancy termination on future reproduction. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Jun;4(2):391–405. Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, I, Shoham, Z, Lancet, M, Blickstein, I, Yemini, M, Miskin, A.Complications associated with genital colonization in pregnancies with and without cerclage. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988 Dec;27(3):359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funai, EF, Paidas, MJ, Rebarber, A, O'Neill, L, Rosen, TJ, Young, BK.Change in cervical length after prophylactic cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jul;94(1):117–119.Google Scholar
Guzman, ER, Houlihan, C, Vintzileos, A, Ivan, J, Benito, C, Kappy, K.The significance of transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix in women treated with emergency cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, FH, Karimi, A, Sakala, EP, Kalugdan, R.Prediction of cervical cerclage outcome by endovaginal ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Oct;171(4):1102–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, K, Funai, EF, O'Neill, L, Rebarber, A, Paidas, MJ, Young, BK.Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;96(3):346–350.Google Scholar
Fox, HA.The incompetent cervix: Words that can hurt. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Oct;147(4):462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobitt, JR, Ledger, WJ.Amniotic fluid analysis: Its role in maternal neonatal infection. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Jan;51(1):56–62.Google Scholar
Romero, R, Jimenez, C, Lohda, AK, Nores, J, Hanaoka, S, Avila, C, Callahan, R, Mazor, M, Hobbins, JC, Diamond, MP.Amniotic fluid glucose concentration: A rapid and simple method for the detection of intraamniotic infection in preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;163(3):968–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mays, JK, Figueroa, R, Shah, J, Khakoo, H, Kaminsky, S, Tejani, N.Amniocentesis for selection before rescue cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 May;95(5 Pt 1):652–655.Google Scholar
Romero, R, Gonzalez, R, Sepulveda, W, Brandt, F, Ramirez, M, Sorokin, Y, Mazor, M, Treadwell, MC, Cotton, DB.Infection and labor. VIII: Microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity in patients with suspected cervical incompetence: Prevalence and clinical significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct;167(4 Pt 1):1086–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougall, J, Siddle, N.Emergency cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Dec;98(12):1234–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, SP, Kornman, LH, Bell, RJ, Brennecke, SP.Cervical surveillance as an alternative to elective cervical cerclage for pregnancy management of suspected cervical incompetence. Aust N Z Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jun;44(3):228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, KM, Bennett, PR, Golara, M, Thalon, A, Shennan, AH.Elective cervical cerclage versus serial ultrasound surveillance of cervical length in a population at high risk for preterm delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Feb;112(2):158–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althuisius, SM, Dekker, GA, Geijn, HP, Bekedam, DJ, Hummel, P.Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): Study design and preliminary results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;183(4):823–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, WH Jr, Yeomans, ER, Hankins, GD.Emergent cerclage. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1990 Apr;170(4):323–326.Google Scholar
Latta, RA, McKenna, B.Emergent cervical cerclage: Predicators of success or failure. J Matern Fetal Med. 1996 Jan–Feb;5(1):22–27.Google Scholar
Lipitz, S., Libshitz, A, Oelsner, G, Kokia, E, Goldenberg, M, Mashiach, S, Schiff, E.Outcome of second-trimester, emergency cervical cerclage in patients with no history of cervical incompetence. Am J Perinatol. 1996 Oct;13(7):419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, M.An aid for cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Sep;42(3):468–469.Google Scholar
Tsatsaris, V, Senat, MV, Gervasise, A, Fernandez, H.Balloon replacement of fetal membranes to facilitate emergency cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;98(2):243–246.Google Scholar
Locatelli, A, Vergani, P, Bellini, P, Strobelt, N, Arreghini, A, Ghidini, A.Amnioreduction in emergency cerclage with prolapsed membranes: Comparison of two methods for reducing the membranes. Am J Perinatol. 1999;16(2):73–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayromlooi, J.Balloon replacement of fetal membranes to facilitate emergency cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):345.Google Scholar
Romero, R, Mazor, M, Morrotti, R, Avila, C, Oyarzun, E, Insunza, A, Parra, M, Montiel, Behnke F, Cassell, GH.Infection and labor. VII. Microbial invasion of the amniotic cavity in spontaneous rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jan;166(1 Pt 1):129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blickstein, I, Katz, Z, Lancet, M, Molgilner, BM.The outcome of pregnancies complicated by preterm rupture of the membranes with and without cerclage. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1989 Mar;28(3):237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludmir, J, Bader, T, Chen, L, Lindenbaum, C, Wong, G.Poor perinatal outcome associated with cerclage in patients with premature rupture of membranes. 1994 Nov;84(5):823–826.
Kominiarek, MA, Kemp, A.Perinatal outcome in preterm premature rupture of membranes at ≤32 weeks with retained cerclage. J Reprod Med. 2006 Jul;51(7):533–538.Google Scholar
McElrath, TF, Norwitz, ER, Lieberman, ES, Heffner, LJ.Perinatal outcome after preterm premature rupture of membranes with in situ cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Nov;187(5):1147–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, TM, Berghella, V, Shlossman, PA, McIntyre, CJ, Maas, BD, Pollock, MA, Wapner, RJ.Timing of cerclage removal after preterm premature rupture of membranes: Maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:847–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElrath, TF, Norwitz, ER, Lieberman, ES, Heffner, LJ.Management of cervical cerclage and preterm premature rupture of the membranes: Should the stitch be removed?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:840–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, IA.Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957 Jun;64(3):346–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novy, MJ.Transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage: A reappraisal 25 years after its introduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jun;164(6 Pt 1):1635–1641; discussion 1641–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, S, Fliegner, JR.Treatment of cervical incompetence by transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Nov;37(4):407–411.Google Scholar
Lesser, KB, Childers, JM, Surwit, EA.Transabdominal cerclage: A laparoscopic approach. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;91(5 Pt 2):855–856.Google Scholar
Cho, CH, Kim, TH, Kwon, SH, Kim, JI, Yoon, SD, Cha, SD.Laparoscopic transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage during pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003 Aug;10(3):363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, GS, Walker, RG, Cameron, AD, Price, JL, Walker, JJ, Calder, AA.Transabdominal cervico-isthmic cerclage in the management of cervical incompetence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997 Apr;72(2):127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotgering, FK, Gaugler-Senden, IP, Lotgering, SF, Wallenburg, HC.Outcome after transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Apr;107(4):779–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olatunbosun, O, Turnell, R, Pierson, R.Transvaginal sonography and fiberoptic illumination of uterine vessels for abdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Nov;102(5 Pt 2):1130–1133.Google Scholar
Newcomer, J.Pessaries for the treatment of incompetent cervix and premature delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2000 Jul;55(7):443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J, Yost, N, Berghella, V, MacPherson, C, Swain, M, Dildy, GA 3rd, Miodovnik, M, Langer, O, Sibai, B, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Can shortened midtrimester cervical length predict very early spontaneous preterm birth?Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;191(1):298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, ER, Mellon, C, Vintzileos, AM, Ananth, CV, Walkters, C, Gipson, K.Longitudinal assessment of endocervical canal length between 15 and 24 weeks' gestation in women at risk for pregnancy loss or preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jul;92(1):31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, ER, Walters, C, Ananth, CV, O'Reilly-Green, C, Benito, CW, Palermo, A, Vintzileos, AM.A comparison of sonographic cervical parameters in predicting spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk singleton gestations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Sep;18(3):195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfirevic, Z.Cerclage: We all know how to do it but can't agree when to do it. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;107(2 Pt 1):219–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vayssiere, C, Favre, R, Audibert, F, Chauvet, MP, Gaucherand, P, Tardif, D, Grange, G, Novoa, A, Descamps, P, Perdu, M, Andrini, E, Janse-Marec, J, Maillard, F, Nisand, I.Cervical length and funneling at 22 and 27 weeks to predict spontaneous birth before 32 weeks in twin pregnancies: A French prospective multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;187(6):1596–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althuisius S, Dekker G, Hummel P, Bekedam D, Kuik D, van Geijn H. Cervical Incompetence Prevention Randomized Cerclage Trial (CIPRACT): Effect of therapeutic cerclage with bed rest vs. bed rest only on cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Aug;20(2):163–167.
Carr, DB, Smith, K, Parsons, L, Chansky, K, Shields, LE.Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: Agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;96(4):554–558.Google Scholar
Terkildsen, MFC, Parilla, BV, Jumar, P, Grobman, WA.Factors associated with success of emergent second-trimester cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Mar;101(3):565–569.Google Scholar
Airoldi, J, Berghella, V, Sehdev, H, Ludmir, J.Transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix to predict preterm birth in women with uterine anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;106(3):553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rechberger, T, Uldbjerg, N, Oxlund, H.Connective tissue changes in the cervix during normal pregnancy and pregnancy complicated by cervical incompetence. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Apr;71(4):563–567.Google Scholar
Arias, F.Cervical cerclage for the temporary treatment of patients with placenta previa. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Apr;71(4):545–548.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, ME, Flannelly, G, Campbell, DM, Kitchener, HC.Fertility and pregnancy outcome following large-loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Jun;102(6):467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G, Berghella, V, Talucci, M, Wapner, RJ.Patients with a prior failed transvaginal cerclage: A comparison of obstetric outcomes with either transabdominal or transvaginal cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;183(4):836–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deffieux, X, Tayrac, R, Louafi, N, Gervaise, A, Bonnet, K, Frydman, R, Fernandez, H.Novel application of polypropylene sling: Transvaginal cervicoisthmic cerclage in women with high risk of preterm delivery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006 May–Jun;13(3):216–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golfier, F, Bassai, J, Paparel, P, Cassignol, A, Vaudoyer, F, Raudrant, D.Transvaginal cervicoisthmic cerclage as an alternative to the transabdominal technique. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001 Dec 10;100(1):16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deffieux, X, Tayrac, R, Louafi, N, Gervaise, A, Senat, MV, Chauveaud-Lambling, A, Picone, O, Faivre, E, Bonnet, K, Frydman, R, Fernandez, H.Transvaginal cervico-isthmic cerclage using polypropylene tape: Surgical procedure and pregnancy outcome: Fernandez's procedure. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2006 Sep;35(5 Pt 1):465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×