Cervical Cerclage During Periviability Can We Stabilize a Moving Target?

被引:13
|
作者
Dahlke, Joshua D.
Sperling, Jeffrey D.
Chauhan, Suneet P.
Berghella, Vincenzo
机构
[1] Nebraska Methodist Womens Hosp & Perinatal Ctr, Omaha, NE USA
[2] Brown Univ, Women & Infants Hosp, Warren Alpert Med Sch, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Providence, RI USA
[3] UT Hlth Univ Texas Med Sch Houston, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Houston, TX USA
[4] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
来源
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY | 2016年 / 127卷 / 05期
关键词
RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; PRETERM BIRTH; TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND; PREGNANCY LOSS; 2ND TRIMESTER; BED REST; WOMEN; PREVENTION; SUTURE; RISK;
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0000000000001391
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recently published consensus guidelines on periviable birth recommending that obstetric interventions (antenatal corticosteroids, tocolysis, magnesium sulfate, antibiotics for preterm premature rupture of membranes or group B streptococcus prophylaxis, and cesarean delivery for fetal indications) may be considered at 23 0/7 weeks of gestation and neonatal resuscitation at 22 0/7 weeks of gestation. Cervical cerclage significantly decreases preterm delivery and improves perinatal outcomes in women with a singleton pregnancy, prior spontaneous preterm birth, and transvaginal cervical length less than 25 mm before 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or in women who experience painless cervix dilation in the second trimester. Randomized trials assessing ultrasonogram-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclage report a procedure-related complication rate of 0.3% and 0.9%, respectively. If previability is a requisite for receiving a cerclage, an increasing subset of women may not be afforded an intervention that has known benefit, because obstetric and neonatal interventions are likely to occur at earlier gestational ages. Given the low procedure-related complication rate demonstrated in randomized trials, appropriately selected women should continue to be offered the procedure up to 24 0/7 weeks of gestation. Based on current evidence, cerclage placed after 24 0/7 weeks of gestation cannot be recommended, and future inquiry in the form of a well-designed randomized trial after this gestational age should be considered. The goal of this commentary is to review the history of cerclage and discuss the indications, risks, benefits, and implications on future research of this procedure as it relates to gestational age during periviability.
引用
收藏
页码:934 / 940
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Can a software quality model hit a moving target?
    Khoshgoftaar, TM
    Allen, EB
    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, PROCEEDINGS, 1998, : 68 - 70
  • [42] Non-pharmacological sedation during spinal anesthesia for transvaginal cervical cerclage
    Handa, F
    Terui, K
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA, 2003, 12 (03) : 234 - 234
  • [43] Can prophylactic transvaginal cervical cerclage improve pregnancy outcome in patients receiving cervical conization? A meta-analysis
    Wang, Ting
    Jiang, Ruoan
    Yao, Yingsha
    Huang, Xiufeng
    GINEKOLOGIA POLSKA, 2021, 92 (10) : 704 - 713
  • [44] Debate: PCI vs CABG: a moving target, but we are gaining
    Holmes, DR
    CURRENT CONTROLLED TRIALS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2001, 2 (06): : 263 - 265
  • [45] Debate: PCI vs CABG: a moving target, but we are gaining
    David R Holmes
    Trials, 2 (6)
  • [46] CAN WE DO WITHOUT MASS CERVICAL SCREENING
    BOON, ME
    CYTOPATHOLOGY, 1991, 2 (02) : 57 - 60
  • [47] How can we improve cervical cancer screening: What can we learn from mistakes?
    Grigore, Mihaela
    Nandrean, Alexandru
    Gafitanu, Dumitru
    BULLETIN DU CANCER, 2020, 107 (03) : 322 - 327
  • [48] Motion and deformation of the target volumes during IMRT for cervical cancer: What margins do we need?
    van de Bunt, L.
    Jurgenliemk-Schulz, I. M.
    de Koji, G.
    Roesink, J. M.
    Tersteeg, J. H. A.
    van der Heide, U. A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (03): : S388 - S388
  • [49] Motion and deformation of the target volumes during IMRT for cervical cancer:: What margins do we need?
    van de Bunt, Linda
    Jurgenliemk-Schulz, Ina M.
    de Kort, Gerard A. P.
    Roesink, Judith M.
    Tersteeg, Robbert J. H. A.
    van der Heide, Uulke A.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 88 (02) : 233 - 240
  • [50] A moving target: Nuclear security during transport
    Pletukhina, Inna
    IAEA Bulletin, 2020, 61 (01): : 18 - 19