Change in cervical length after prophylactic cerclage

Obstetrics and Gynecology, 94(1), 117-119

DOI 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00568-7 PMID 10389730

Abstract

Objective

To determine changes in length of incompetent cervices after cerclage, using transvaginal ultrasound.

Methods

Patients were enrolled in a prospective, observational study under an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol. McDonald or Shirodkar sutures were placed according to physician preference. Pre- and postcerclage cervical lengths were measured within 72 hours of the procedure. At each examination, the first measurement was discarded, and a mean of the subsequent three measurements was calculated.

Results

Twenty-one Shirodkar and ten McDonald operations were done. The mean (+/- standard deviation) precerclage cervical length was 2.7+/-0.9 cm and the postcerclage cervical length was 3.6+/-0.9 cm (P<.001, paired t test).

Conclusion

Prophylactic cerclage results in measurable increases in cervical length, which might contribute to the success of the procedure. Further study is needed to determine whether the degree of cervical lengthening after cerclage predicts term delivery.

Topics

cervical cerclage cervical length change transvaginal ultrasound, prophylactic cerclage cervical incompetence length measurement, McDonald Shirodkar cerclage cervical lengthening outcomes, transvaginal ultrasound cervical length pre post cerclage, cervical insufficiency cerclage prospective observational study, cerclage mechanism cervical lengthening preterm prevention, incompetent cervix surgical intervention ultrasound monitoring, Funai Paidas cerclage cervical length change, cervical cerclage predicting term delivery ultrasound, prophylactic cerclage second trimester cervical shortening
PMID 10389730 10389730 DOI 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00568-7 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00568-7

Cite this article

Funai, E. F., Paidas, M. J., Rebarber, A., O'Neill, L., Rosen, T. J., & Young, B. K. (1999). Change in cervical length after prophylactic cerclage. *Obstetrics and gynecology*, *94*(1), 117-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00568-7

Related articles