Table 9 |
|||
|
Impact of cervical cerclage on stillbirth and perinatal outcomes |
|||
|
Source |
Location and Type of Study |
Intervention |
Stillbirths/Perinatal Outcomes |
|
|
|||
|
Reviews and meta-analyses |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Drakeley et al. 2003 [92] |
Netherlands, France, UK, South Africa. Meta-analysis (Cochrane). 6 RCTs included (N = 2059 women). |
Assessed the effects of cervical cerclage (intervention) vs. no cerclage (controls). |
PMR: RR = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.48–1.36) [NS] [24/1035 vs. 31/1024 in intervention vs. control groups, respectively. |
|
|
|||
|
Jorgensen et al. 2007 [100] |
Netherlands, USA, Nigeria, UK, France, Hungary, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Iceland, Ireland, Canada, Brazil Slovenia, Greece and Chile. Meta-analysis. 7 RCTs included (N = 2091 women). |
Assessed the effects of cervical cerclage (intervention) vs. no cerclage (controls). |
(Singleton gestations) Pregnancy loss or death before hospital discharge: OR = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.60–1.10) [NS] (Multiple gestations) Pregnancy loss or death before hospital discharge: OR = 5.88 (95% CI: 1.14–30.19). |
|
|
|||
|
Intervention studies |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Blair et al. 2002 [101] |
West Indies. RCT. Pregnant women (N = 50) with cervical incompetence. |
Compared the impact of cervical cerclage between inpatient care for 3 days post-procedure, spending 3 days in hospital post-procedure (intervention) vs. outpatient bed rest (controls). Both groups given salbutamol tablets postoperatively for tocolysis. |
Live birth rate: 20/23 vs. 18/23 (86.9% vs. 78.3%) in intervention vs. control groups, respectively [NS] |
|
|
|||
|
Jaswal et al. 2006 [198] |
India. Quasi-RCT. Pregnant women (N = 37) being expectantly managed for placenta previa. |
Compared the impact of cervical cerclage (intervention) versus no cerclage (controls). |
PMR: 0/18 vs. 8/19 in intervention vs. control groups, respectively (P < 0.01). |
|
|
|||
|
Observational studies |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Debbs et al. 2007 [104] |
USA. Retrospective case series. Pregnant women (N = 75) with negative evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss and ≥ 1 previous unsuccessful transvaginal cerclage. |
Assessed the impact of transabdominal cerclage on birth outcomes. |
Live birth rate: 96% after transabdominal cerclage. |
|
|
|||
|
Fick et al. 2007 [102] |
USA. A cohort study. Pregnant women (N = 88 women; N = 9 pregnancies) with transabdominal cerclage. |
Compared the live birth rate before and after transabdominal cerclage. |
Live birth rate: 93% vs. 18% after vs. cerclage, respectively; P < 0.001). |
|
|
|||
|
Gesson-Paute et al. 2007 [103] |
France. Retrospective study. Transabdominal cerclages (N = 12) performed from 1988–2005. |
Compared the live birth rate during the period where transabdominal cerclage was performed vs. the pre-cerclage period. |
Live birth rate: 93% vs. 17% after vs. before cerclage, respectively. |
|
|
|||
|
Menezes et al. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2009 9(Suppl 1):S4 doi:10.1186/1471-2393-9-S1-S4 |
|||