Advertisement

The effect of cervical cerclage on the labor curve

Published:December 30, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100858

      BACKGROUND

      Cervical cerclage is an effective intervention to prevent preterm birth among individuals with a history of cervical insufficiency, individuals with a short cervix and history of preterm birth, or individuals with second-trimester painless dilation. Although cerclage reduces the mechanical stress on the cervix by reinforcing it with sutures, cerclage could also cause scarring of the cervix, which may affect the progress of labor.

      OBJECTIVE

      This study aimed to compare the labor curves between individuals who underwent cerclage and those who did not undergo cerclage.

      STUDY DESIGN

      This was a retrospective cohort study of individuals with singleton term pregnancy, vertex presentation, and vaginal delivery, using the data from the Consortium on Safe Labor. We excluded individuals with fetal anomalies, stillbirth, or abnormal perinatal outcomes, including 5-minute Apgar score of <7, birth injury, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. We modeled the course of cervical dilation using repeated-measures analysis with a polynomial function and generated smoothed labor curves. An interval-censored regression analysis was performed to estimate traverse times (the elapsed time between 2 cervical dilation measures). The traverse times were compared between individuals who underwent cerclage and those who did not undergo cerclage, controlling for induction of labor and parity.

      RESULTS

      There were 245 individuals who underwent cerclage and 110,080 individuals who did not undergo cerclage. Individuals who underwent cerclage compared with those who did not undergo cerclage had a similar traverse time from 1 to 6 cm (median, 9.1 vs 10.3 hours; adjusted P=.37) and from 6 to 10 cm (median, 1.5 vs 1.5 hours; adjusted P=.23). Individuals who underwent cerclage compared with those who did not undergo cerclage had a longer traverse time from rupture of membranes to delivery (median, 4.0 vs 3.0 hours; adjusted P<.01).

      CONCLUSION

      Cervical cerclage did not affect the overall progress of labor.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Blencowe H
        • Cousens S
        • Chou D
        • et al.
        Born too soon: the global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births.
        Reprod Health. 2013; 10: S2
        • McCormick MC.
        The contribution of low birth weight to infant mortality and childhood morbidity.
        N Engl J Med. 1985; 312: 82-90
        • Marlow N
        • Wolke D
        • Bracewell MA
        • Samara M
        EPICure Study Group. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 9-19
        • Liu L
        • Oza S
        • Hogan D
        • et al.
        Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000-15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals.
        Lancet. 2016; 388: 3027-3035
        • Frey HA
        • Klebanoff MA.
        The epidemiology, etiology, and costs of preterm birth.
        Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 21: 68-73
      1. ACOG Practice Bulletin No.142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (123): 372-379
        • Timmons B
        • Akins M
        • Mahendroo M.
        Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition.
        Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2010; 21: 353-361
        • Harger JH.
        Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1980; 56: 543-548
        • Zhang J
        • Troendle J
        • Reddy UM
        • et al.
        Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203 (326.e1–10)
        • Zhang J
        • Landy HJ
        • Ware Branch D
        • et al.
        Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1281-1287
        • Harger JH.
        Cervical cerclage: patient selection, morbidity, and success rates.
        Clin Perinatol. 1983; 10: 321-341
        • Weissman A
        • Jakobi P
        • Zahi S
        • Zimmer EZ.
        The effect of cervical cerclage on the course of labor.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 76: 168-171
        • Shin JE
        • Shin JC
        • Kim SJ
        • Lee Y.
        Effect of cerclage on labor course and obstetric outcome: a case-control study.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25: 1779-1782
        • Friedman E.
        The graphic analysis of labor.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954; 68: 1568-1575
        • Friedman EA.
        Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1955; 6: 567-589
        • Spong CY
        • Berghella V
        • Wenstrom KD
        • Mercer BM
        • Saade GR.
        Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1181-1193
        • Caughey AB
        • Cahill AG
        • Guise JM
        • Rouse DJ.
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College)
        • Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
        Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 179-193