Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:13:47.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREMATURE CERVICAL CHANGE AND THE USE OF CERVICAL CERCLAGE

Part of: Bespoke shallow archive Weizmann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2007

MANJU CHANDIRAMANI  and
ANDREW H SHENNAN
MANJU CHANDIRAMANI*
Affiliation:
King's College London, Division of Reproductive Health, Endocrinology and Development, Department of Women's Health, St Thomas’ Hospital, London
ANDREW H SHENNAN
Affiliation:
King's College London, Division of Reproductive Health, Endocrinology and Development, Department of Women's Health, St Thomas’ Hospital, London
*
Manju Chandiramani, Clinical Research Fellow, King's College London, Division of Reproductive Health, Endocrinology and Development, Department of Women's Health, 10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas’ Hospital, Lambeth Palace Road, London SE1 7EH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Preterm birth and its subsequent consequences continue to be a major challenge worldwide. In the United States in 2004, 12.5% of infants were born preterm, making the annual societal economic burden associated with preterm birth in excess of $26.2 billion (and this is a modest estimate). Spontaneous preterm birth accounts for about 75% of all preterm births; however, at earlier gestations iatrogenic preterm birth accounts for a greater proportion of all preterm births; at 27–28 weeks 50% are iatrogenic. The proportion of babies transferred to the neonatal unit is more than 90% for those born before 33 completed weeks of gestation compared with 31% at 36 weeks; delivery between 33 completed weeks and 36 completed weeks has a relatively low morbidity and mortality. Nonetheless, 1 in 3 children born preterm but beyond 32 weeks have educational and behavioural problems at the age of 7, with 1 in 4 children born between 32 and 35 weeks requiring support from non-teaching assistants at school. Although more than 40% of babies at 35 completed weeks show signs of maturity, some still need ventilation at 38 completed weeks. Almost one-fifth of all infants born at less than 32 weeks gestation do not survive the first year of life.

Type
Research Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 25 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

1CDC 2005. Preliminary Births for 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/product/pubs/pubd/hcstats/prelimbirths04/prelimbirthsGoogle Scholar
28th Annual Report: Confidential Enquiries into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI). London: Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium (MCHRC), 2001.Google Scholar
3Steer, P. The epidemiology of preterm labour. BJOG 2005; 112 (Suppl 1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Huddy, CJL. Educational and behavioural problems in babies of 32–35 weeks’ gestation. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001; 85: F23–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Morrison, JJ, Rennie, M, Milton, PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. BJOG 1995; 102: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Petrou, S. The economic consequences of preterm birth during the first ten years of life. BJOG 2005; 112 (Suppl 1): 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Langhoff-Roos, J, Kesmodel, U, Jacobsson, B, Rasmussen, S, Vogel, I. Spontaneous preterm delivery in primiparous women at low risk in Denmark: population-based study. Br Med J 2006; 332: 937–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Shennan, AH, Bewley, S. Why should preterm births be rising? Br Med J 2006; 332: 924–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Crowley, P. Prophylactic corticosteroids for preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1996; (1): CD000065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10The Cervix: Anatomy of the Uterine Cervix. American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. http://www.asccp.org/edu/practice/cervix/anatomy.shtmlGoogle Scholar
11Norman, JE, Thomson, AJ, Osman, I, Ledingham, MA. Cervical physiology. In: Critchley H, Bennett P, Thornton S, editors. Preterm Birth. London: RCOG Press; 2004; 99–114.Google Scholar
12Snell, RS. Clinical anatomy for medical students. London: Little, Brown and Company (Inc.), 5th ed. 1995; 323–27.Google Scholar
13Shennan, A, Jones, B. The cervix and prematurity: aetiology, prediction and prevention. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 9: 471–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Montes, GS, Zugaib, M, Joazeiro, PP, Varayoud, J, Ramos, JG, Munoz-de-Toro, M et al Phenotypic modulation of fibroblastic cells in the mucous layer of the human uterine cervix at term. Reproduction 2002; 124: 783–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Watari, M, Watari, H, DiSanto, ME, Chacko, S, Shi, GP, Strauss, JF 3rd. Pro-inflammatory cytokines induce expression of matrix-metabolizing enzymes in human cervical smooth muscle cells. Am J Pathol 1999; 154: 1755–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Ito, A, Goshowaki, H, Sato, T, Mori, Y, Yamashita, K, Hayakawa, T et al Human recombinant interleukin-1 alpha-mediated stimulation of procollagenase production and suppression of biosynthesis of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases in rabbit uterine cervical fibroblasts. FEBS Lett 1988; 234: 326–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17El Maradny, E, Kanayama, N, Halim, A, Maehara, K, Sumimoto, K, Terao, T. Biochemical changes in the cervical tissue of rabbit induced by interleukin-8, interleukin-1beta, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate and prostaglandin E2: a comparative study. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 1099–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18El Maradny, E, Kanayama, N, Halim, A, Maehara, K, Sumimoto, K, Terao, T. The effect of interleukin-1 in rabbit cervical ripening. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 60: 75–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19House, M, Socrate, S. The cervix as a biomechanical structure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 745–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Iams, JD, Johnson, FF, Sonek, J, 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; 172: 1097–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Groom, KM, Shennan, AH, Bennett, PR. Ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage: outcome depends on preoperative length and presence of visible membranes at time of cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 445–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Romero, R, Espinoza, J, Erez, O, Hassan, S. The role of cervical cerclage in obstetric practice: can the patient who could benefit from this procedure be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Hassan, 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; 182: 1458–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Rust, OA, Atlas, RO, Kimmel, S, Roberts, WE, Hess, LW. Does the presence of a funnel increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcome in a patient with a short cervix? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1060–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Espinoza, J, Gonclaves, LF, Romero, R, Nien, JK, Stites, S, Kim, YM et al The prevalence and clinical significance of amniotic fluid ‘sludge’ in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 346–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Daskalasis, G, Thomakos, N, Hatziioannou, L, Mesogitis, S, Papantoniou, N, Antsaklis, A. Cervical assessment in women with threatened preterm labour. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005; 17: 309–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Burnett, AF. Radical trachelectomy with laparoscopic lymphadenectomy: review of oncologic and obstetrical outcomes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 18: 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Crane, JM, Delaney, T, Hutchens, D. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the prediction of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 37–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Goffinet, F. Primary predictors of preterm labour. BJOG 2005; 112 (Suppl 1): 38–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Berkowitz, G, Papiernik, E. Epidemiology of preterm birth. Epidemiol Rev 1993; 15: 414–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Mercer, BM, Goldenberg, RL, Moawad, AH, Meis, PJ, Iams, JD, Das, AF et al The Preterm Prediction study: effect of gestational age and cause of preterm birth on subsequent obstetric outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 1216–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Gardosi, J, Kady, SM, Francis, A. Fetal growth, maturity and preterm birth. In: Critchley H, Bennett P, Thornton S, editors. Preterm Birth. London: RCOG Press; 2004; 61–72.Google Scholar
33Goldenberg, RL, Iams, JD, Mercer, BM, Meis, PJ, Moawad, AH, Copper, RL et al The Preterm Prediction study: the value of new vs standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births. Am J Public Health 1998; 88: 233–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Behrman, RE, Butler, AS, editors. Preterm Birth: Causes, consequences, and prevention. Washington: The National Academies Press, 2006; 47–50.Google Scholar
35Smith, GCS, Shah, I, White, IR, Pell, JP, Crossley, JA, Dobbie, R. Maternal and biochemical predictors of spontaneous preterm birth among nulliparous women: a systematic analysis in relation to the degree of prematurity. Int. J Epidemiol 2006; 35: 1169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Blondel, B, Macfarlane, A, Gissler, M, Breart, G, Zeitlin, J. Preterm birth and multiple pregnancy in European countries participating in the PERISTAT project. BJOG 2006; 113: 528–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Pinborg, A, Loft, A, Rasmussen, S, Schmidt, L, Langhoff-Roos, J, Greisen, G et al Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 3438 IVF/ICSI and 10362 non IVF/ICSI twins born between 1995 and 2000. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 435–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Verstraelen, H, Goetgeluk, S, Derom, C, Vansteelandt, S, Derom, R, Goetghebeur, E et al Preterm birth in twins after subfertility treatment: population based cohort study. Br Med J 2005; 331: 1173–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39McLean, M, Walters, WA, Smith, R. Prediction and early diagnosis of preterm labour: a critical review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1993; 43: 209–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Tekesin, I, Eberhart, LHJ, Schaeffer, V, et al Evaluation and validation of a new risk score (CLEOPATRA score) to predict the probability of premature delivery for patients with threatened preterm labour. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Krupa, FG, Faltin, D, Cecatti, JG, Surita, FGC, Souza, JP. Predictors of preterm birth. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006; 94: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Buekens, P, Alexander, S, Boutsen, M, Blondel, B, Kaminski, M, Reid, M. Randomised controlled trial of routine cervical examination findings in pregnancy. European Community Collaborative Study Group on Prenatal Screening. Lancet 1994; 344: 841–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Iams, JD, Goldenberg, RL, Meis, PJ, Mercer, BM, Moawad, A, Das, A et al The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 567–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Owen, J, Yost, N, Berghella, V, Thorn, E, Swain, M, Dildy, GA et al Mid-trimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. JAMA 2001; 286: 1340–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Heath, VCF, Southall, TR, Souka, AP, Elisseou, A, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 12: 312–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Heath, VCF, Southall, TR, Souka, AP, Elisseou, A, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: relation to demographic characteristics and previous obstetric history. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 304–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Durnwald, CP, Walker, H, Lundy, JC, Iams, JD. Rates of recurrent preterm birth by obstetrical history and cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1170–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Leitich, H, Brunbauer, M, Kaider, A, Egarter, C, Husslein, P. Cervical length and dilatation of the internal cervical os detected by vaginal ultrasonography as markers for preterm delivery: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 1465–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Guzman, ER, Walters, C, Ananth, CV, O'Reilly-Green, C, Benito, CW, Palermo, A et al A comparison of sonographic cervical parameters in predicting spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk singleton gestations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 204–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50Oldenhof, AD, Shynlova, OP, Liu, M, Langille, BL, Lye, SJ. Mitogen-activated protein kinases mediate stretch-induced c-fos mRNA expression in myometrial smooth muscles. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2002; 283; C1530–C1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Goldenberg, RL, Iams, JD, Miodovnik, M, Van Dorsten, JP, Thurnau, G, Bottoms, S et al The Preterm Prediction study: risk factors in twin gestations. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1047–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52To, MS, Skentou, C, Cicero, S, Liao, AW, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical length at 23 weeks in triplet: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 515–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Peaceman, AM, Andrews, WW, Thorp, JM, Cliver, Sp, Lukes, A, Iams, JD, et al Fetal fibronectin as a predictor of preterm birth in patients with symptoms: a multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Skoll, A, St.Louis, P, Amiri, N, Delisle, M, Lalji, S. The evaluation of the fetal fibronectin test for prediction of preterm delivery in symptomatic patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006; 28: 206–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Shennan, A, Jones, G, Hawken, J, Crawshaw, S, Judah, J, Senior, V et al Fetal fibronectin test predicts delivery before 30 weeks of gestation in high risk women, but increases anxiety. BJOG 2005; 112: 293–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Goldenberg, RL, Iams, JD, Das, A, Mercer, BM, Meis, PJ, Moawad, AH et al The Preterm Prediction Study: sequential cervical length and fetal fibronectin testing for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 636–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57Gomez, R, Romero, R, Medina, L, Nien, JK, Chaiworapongsa, T, Carstens, M et al Cervicovaginal fibronectin improves the prediction of preterm delivery based on sonographic cervical length in patients with preterm uterine contractions and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 350–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Schmitz, T, Maillard, F, Bessard-Bacquaert, S, Kayem, G, Fulla, Y, Cabrol, D et al Selective use of fetal fibronectin detection after cervical length measurement to predict spontaneous preterm delivery in women with preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 138–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Podobnik, M, Bulic, M, Smiljanic, N, Bistricki, J. Ultrasonography in the detection of cervical incompetency. J Clin Ultrasound 1988; 13: 383–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60Andersen, HF. Transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1991; 19: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61To, MS, Skentou, C, Cicero, S, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-weeks’ scan: problems with transabdominal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 292–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Kurtzman, JT, Goldsmith, LJ, Gall, SA, Spinnato, JA. Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: a blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 852–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63Owen, J, Neely, C, Northen, A. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: a blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 780–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Cicero, S, Skentou, C, Souka, A, To, MS, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 335–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65Clement, S, Candy, B, Heath, VCF, To, MS, Nicolaides, KH. Transvaginal ultrasound in pregnancy: its acceptability to women and maternal psychological morbidity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 22: 508–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66Seehusen, DA, Johnson, DR, Earwood, JS, Sethuraman, SN, Cornali, J, Gillespie, K et al Improving women's experience during speculum examinations at routine gynaecological visits: randomised clinical trial. Br Med J 2006; 333: 171–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67To, MS, Skentou, C, Chan, C, Zagaliki, A, Nicolaides, KH. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-week scan: standardizing techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17: 217–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68Nicolaides, KH, Tsoi, E, To, MS. Sonographic measurement of cervical length and preterm delivery. In: Critchley H, Bennett P, Thornton S, editors. Preterm Birth. London: RCOG Press; 2004; 124–39.Google Scholar
69Romero, R, Espinoza, J, Erez, O, Hassan, S. The role of cervical cerclage in obstetric practice: Can the patient who could benefit from this procedure be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70Myerscough, PR. Munro Kerr's Operative Obstetrics. 10th ed. London: Balliere Tindall, 2002; 358–61.Google Scholar
71McDonald, IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp 1957; 64: 346–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 516–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73Rozenberg, P, Senat, MV, Gillet, A, Villey, Y. Comparison of two methods of cervical cerclage by ultrasound cervical measurement. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 314–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74Katz, M, Abrahams, C. Transvaginal placement of cervicoisthmic cerclage: report on pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1989–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
75Harger, JH. Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56: 543–48.Google ScholarPubMed
76Perrotin, F, Marret, H, Yeva-Derman, M, Alonso, AM, Lansac, J, Body, G. Second trimester cerclage of short cervixes: which technique to use? A retrospective study of 25 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2002; 31: 640–48.Google ScholarPubMed
77Simcox, R, Shennan, A. Cervical cerclage: a review. Int J Surg 2006. In press.Google Scholar
78Monaghan, JM, Lopes, T, Naik, R, (eds). Bonney's Gynaecological Surgery. 10th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004; 44–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79Rush, RW, Isaacs, S, McPherson, K, Jones, L, Chalmers, I, Grant, A. A randomised controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 724–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80Drakeley, AJ, Roberts, D, Alfirevic, Z. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 1: CD003253.Google Scholar
81Jongen, VH, van Roosmalen, J. Complications of cervical cerclage in rural areas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1997; 57: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82Lazar, P, Guegen, 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; 91: 731–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
83Bachmann, LM, Coomarasamy, A, Honest, H, Khan, KS. Elective cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82: 398–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84Odibo, AO, Elkousy, M, Ural, SH, Macones, GA. Prevention of preterm birth by cervical cerclage compared with expectant management: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003; 58: 130–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85Groom, 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 Rep Biol 2004; 112: 158–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86Rust, OA, Atlas, RO, Reed, J, van 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; 185: 1098–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87Berghella, V, Odibo, AO, Tolosa, J. Cerclage for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix found on transvaginal ultrasound examination: a randomised trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88To, MS, Alfirevic, Z, Heath, VCF, Cicero, S, Cacho, AM, Williamson, PR et al Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 1849–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89Althuisius, SM, Dekker, GA, Hummel, P, Bekedam, DJ, van 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; 185: 1106–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90Belej-Rak, T, Okun, N, Windrim, R, Ross, S, Hannah, ME. Effectiveness of cervical cerclage for a sonographically shortened cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 1679–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91Berghella, A, Odibo, AO, To, M, Rust, OA, Althuisius, SM. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 181–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92Fox, R, Holmes, R, James, N, Tuohy, J, Wardle, P. Serial transvaginal ultrasonography following McDonald cerclage and repeat suture insertion. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 38: 27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93Holman, MR. An aid for cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol 1973; 42: 468–469.Google ScholarPubMed
94Makino, Y, Makino, I, Tsujioka, H, Kawarabayashi, T. Amnioreduction in patients with bulging prolapsed membranes out of the cervix and vaginal orifice in cervical cerclage. J Perinat Med 2004; 32: 140–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95Lipitz, S, Libshitz, A, Oelsner, G, Kokia, E, Goldenberg, M, Mashiach, S et al Outcome of second-trimester, emergency cervical cerclage in patients with no history of cervical incompetence. Am J Perinatol 1996; 13: 419–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
96MacDougall, J, Siddle, N. Emergency cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 1234–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97Schorr, SJ, Morales, WJ. Obstetric management of incompetent cervix and bulging fetal membranes. J Reprod Med 1996; 41: 235–38.Google ScholarPubMed
98Althuisius, SM, Dekker, GA, Hummel, P, van Geijn, HP. Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial: emergency cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 907–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
99Olatunbosun, OA, Al-Nuaim, L, Turnell, RW. Emergency cerclage compared with bed rest for advanced cervical dilatation in pregnancy. Int Surg 1995; 80: 170–74.Google ScholarPubMed
100Yip, S-K, Fung, HYM, Fung, T-Y. Emergency cervical cerclage: a study between duration of cerclage in situ with gestation at cerclage, herniation of forewater, and cervical dilatation at presentation. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 1998; 78: 63–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
101Lettieri, L, Vintzileos, AM, Rodis, JF, Albini, SM, Salafia, CM. Does ‘idiopathic’ preterm labor resulting in preterm birth exist? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 1480–485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
102Weiner, CP, Lee, KY, Buhimschi, CS, Christner, R, Buhimschi, IA. Proteomic biomarkers that predict the clinical success of rescue cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 710–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
103Daskalakis, G, Papantoniou, N, Mesogitis, S, Antsaklis, A. Management of cervical insufficiency and bulging fetal membranes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 221–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
104Alfirevic, Z. Cerclage: we all know how to do it but can't agree when to do it. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 219–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
105Terkildsen, MF, Parilla, BV, Kumar, P, Grobman, WA. Factors associated with success of emergent second-trimester cerclage. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 565–69.Google ScholarPubMed
106Cockwell, HA, Smith, GN. Cervical incompetence and the role of emergency cerclage. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27: 123–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
107Benifla, JL, Goffinet, F, Darai, E, Proust, A, De Crepy, A, Madelenat, P. Emergency cervical cerclage after 20 weeks’ gestation: a retrospective study of 6 years’ practice in 34 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther 1997; 12: 274–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
108Groom, KM, Bennett, PR, Maxwell, DJ, Shennan, AH. Successful cerclage at advanced cervical dilatation in the second trimester. BJOG 2001; 108: 1005–1007.Google ScholarPubMed
109Guzman, 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; 175: 471–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed