İSMET HORTU
(Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Cagdas SAHİN
(Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Orkun ILGEN
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Mert KAZANDI
(Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Ali AKDEMİR
(Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
A. Mete ERGENOGLU
(Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2020Cilt: 26Sayı: 2ISSN: 1300-4751 / 2602-4918Sayfa Aralığı: 70 - 74İngilizce

17 0
Double Cerclage in Cervical Insufficiency: A Single Tertiary Center Experience
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the perinatal outcomes of double cerclage via laparoscopic plus transvaginal technique in women with a history of transvaginal cerclage failure, between women with single transvaginal cerclage. STUDY DESIGN: Five women who were diagnosed with cervical insufficiency with a history of at least one vaginal cerclage failure and 10 women who were diagnosed with cervical insufficiency were included in this study. Laparoscopic cerclage was performed to all women who have a medical history of vaginal cerclage failure, before pregnancy and additional transvaginal cervical cerclage was performed during their pregnancy (Group 1). Single transvaginal cervical cerclage was performed to the 10 women who had a short cervix and/or cervical insufficiency during their pregnancy (Group 2). The number of cerclage failure, perinatal outcomes, gestational week at the time of delivery, birth weight and Apgar scores were evaluated. RESULTS: All five women in group 1 underwent a cesarean section. None of them had chorioamnionitis or poor obstetric outcomes and all gave birth after the 34th week of pregnancy. All ten women in group 2 were evaluated. Two women gave birth vaginally at the 33rd week of pregnancy. Remaining eight cases gave birth above 34th week of pregnancy. Six of the eight cases underwent cesarean section and two of the remaining were delivered vaginally. Mean birth weight of the fetuses were 2490±265 g and 2.710 ±361 g in group1 and group 2, respectively. Mean gestational age at the time of birth in group 1 and group 2 were found 36±1.83 weeks and 35.6±1.14 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cervical cerclage during pregnancy could be a safe and effective treatment. However, sometimes it might not be enough and transvaginal cervical cerclage may be needed to strengthen cervical tension.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Shennan A, Jones B. The cervix and prematurity: aetiology, prediction and prevention. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004;9(6):471-9.
  • 2. Witt MU, Joy SD, Clark J, Herring A, Bowes WA, Thorp JM. Cervicoisthmic cerclage: transabdominal vs transvaginal approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201 (1):105.e1-4.
  • 3. Pergialiotis V, Vlachos DG, Prodromidou A, Perrea D, Gkioka E, Vlachos GD. Double versus single cervical cerclage for the prevention of preterm births. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(4):379-85.
  • 4. Zolghadri J, Younesi M, Asadi N, Khosravi D, Behdin S, Tavana Z, et al. Double versus single cervical cerclage for patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: a randomized clinical trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(2):375-80.
  • 5. Tsai YL, Lin YH, Chong KM, Huang LW, Hwang JL, Seow KM. Effectiveness of double cervical cerclage in women with at least one previous pregnancy loss in the second trimester: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35(4):666-71.
  • 6. Ehsanipoor RM, Seligman NS, Saccone G, Szymanski LM, Wissinger C, Werner EF, et al. Physical examination indicated cerclage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):125-35.
  • 7. 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;106(1):181-9.
  • 8. Owen J, Hankins G, Iams JD, Berghella V, Sheffield JS, Perez-Delboy A, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(4):375.e1-–8.
  • 9. Berghella V, Keeler SM, To MS, Althuisius SM, Rust OA. Effectiveness of cerclage according to severity of cervical length shortening: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(4):468-73.
  • 10. Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Roberts D, Jorgensen AL. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD008991.
  • 11. Harger JH. Cerclage and cervical insufficiency: an evidence-based analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(6): 1313-27.
  • 12. Benson RC, Durfee RB. Transabdomınal cervico uterine cerclage during pregnancy for the treatment of cervical incompetency. Obstet Gynecol. 1965;25:145-55.
  • 13. Cho CH, Kim TH, Kwon SH, Kim JI, Yoon SD, Cha SD. Laparoscopic transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage during pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003; 10(3):363-6.
  • 14. Liddell HS, Lo C. Laparoscopic cervical cerclage: a series in women with a history of second trimester miscarriage. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(3):342-5.
  • 15. Novy MJ. Transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage: a reappraisal 25 years after its introduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164(6 Pt 1):1632-5.
  • 16. Fick AL, Caughey AB, Parer JT. Transabdominal cerclage: can we predict who fails? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007;20(1):63-7.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.