Trends in cerclage use

E-ISSN： 1600-0412|94|11|1188-1194

ISSN： 0001-6349

Source： ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Vol.94, Iss.11, 2015-11, pp. : 1188-1194

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe indications of placement of cerclage have recently changed, and so it is important to evaluate how many women are undergoing this procedure. With the recent completion of clinical trials, it is plausible that obstetricians and perinatologists may have become more selective in terms of the best candidates for cerclage.Material and methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent cerclage for prevention of preterm birth in the Division of Maternal and Fetal Medicine of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (Philadelphia, USA) over a 16‐year period, from 1998 to 2013. We included women with singleton gestations who had a history‐indicated (HIC) or ultrasound‐indicated cerclage (UIC). Physical examination‐indicated cerclage and transabdominal cerclage were excluded. We planned to compare data before and after 2005.ResultsFrom 1998 to 2013, there were 33 353 deliveries, of which 16 871 occurred from 1998 to 2005 and 16 482 from 2006 to 2013. Of all deliveries, 328 women (1.0%) received HIC or UIC, and were therefore included in the analysis. Between 1998–2005 and 2006–2013 there were significant decreases in the overall rate of cerclage (1.4% to 0.6%; p < 0.001), as well as the rate of HIC (0.8% to 0.2%; p < 0.001) and UIC (0.6% to 0.3%; p < 0.001).ConclusionsDuring the last 16 years, the overall rate of HIC and UIC cerclage at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital significantly declined from 1.4% to 0.6%; significant decreases were seen for both HIC and UIC. The reason for the lower rate of cerclages may be the recently published evidence.