Comparison between vaginal and laparoscopic cerclage in women with mid-trimester pregnancy loss or history of spontaneous preterm delivery.

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-10 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05250-8
Elisa Montaguti, Diego Raimondo, Alessandro Arena, Josefina Diglio, Benedetta Orsini, Gaetana DI Donna, Paolo Casadio, Renato Seracchioli, Gianluigi Pilu
{"title":"Comparison between vaginal and laparoscopic cerclage in women with mid-trimester pregnancy loss or history of spontaneous preterm delivery.","authors":"Elisa Montaguti, Diego Raimondo, Alessandro Arena, Josefina Diglio, Benedetta Orsini, Gaetana DI Donna, Paolo Casadio, Renato Seracchioli, Gianluigi Pilu","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05250-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Women with unfavorable obstetric history can benefit from prophylactic cerclage (\"history indicated\") which can be performed vaginally or transabdominally with laparoscopic techniques. The aim of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness in the prevention of preterm birth of the vaginal technique and of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique in women with an unfavorable obstetric history.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study examining elective cerclages performed in women with adverse obstetrics history. The primary outcome was rate of early preterm and second trimester deliveries while other outcomes analyzed were surgical complications, the time needed for cerclage procedures, live birth rate, gestational age at delivery, birth weight, Apgar score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 64 women were analyzed; among them, 14 underwent a laparoscopic procedure (22%) while 50 a vaginal cerclage (78%). The two groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic characteristics, but of course differed significantly in terms of obstetrics history, as well as for the surgical indications of cerclage procedures. The rate of early preterm deliveries and second trimester miscarriage were the same in the vaginal and laparoscopic group (8%), comparable to what was reported in literature. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group, but with similar duration of the hospital stay. We reported no intraoperative complications in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As the laparoscopic procedure, usually reserved for women with a previous failed vaginal cerclage, has been proved to be equally safe and effective, it may could be proposed to a wider group of women. Prospective randomized studies are needed to provide new and conclusive data about this topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05250-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Women with unfavorable obstetric history can benefit from prophylactic cerclage ("history indicated") which can be performed vaginally or transabdominally with laparoscopic techniques. The aim of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness in the prevention of preterm birth of the vaginal technique and of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique in women with an unfavorable obstetric history.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study examining elective cerclages performed in women with adverse obstetrics history. The primary outcome was rate of early preterm and second trimester deliveries while other outcomes analyzed were surgical complications, the time needed for cerclage procedures, live birth rate, gestational age at delivery, birth weight, Apgar score.

Results: Data from 64 women were analyzed; among them, 14 underwent a laparoscopic procedure (22%) while 50 a vaginal cerclage (78%). The two groups were homogeneous in terms of demographic characteristics, but of course differed significantly in terms of obstetrics history, as well as for the surgical indications of cerclage procedures. The rate of early preterm deliveries and second trimester miscarriage were the same in the vaginal and laparoscopic group (8%), comparable to what was reported in literature. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group, but with similar duration of the hospital stay. We reported no intraoperative complications in both groups.

Conclusions: As the laparoscopic procedure, usually reserved for women with a previous failed vaginal cerclage, has been proved to be equally safe and effective, it may could be proposed to a wider group of women. Prospective randomized studies are needed to provide new and conclusive data about this topic.

对中期妊娠流产或有自然早产史的妇女进行阴道和腹腔镜宫颈环扎术的比较。
背景:有不良产科病史的妇女可受益于预防性宫颈环扎术("病史指征"),该手术可通过阴道或腹腔镜技术经腹进行。我们的研究旨在评估阴道技术和腹腔镜微创技术对有不良产科病史的妇女预防早产的有效性:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是产科病史不佳的妇女进行的选择性宫颈环扎术。主要结果是早产率和第二孕期分娩率,其他分析结果包括手术并发症、宫颈环扎术所需时间、活产率、分娩时胎龄、出生体重、Apgar 评分:对 64 名产妇的数据进行了分析,其中 14 名产妇(22%)接受了腹腔镜手术,50 名产妇(78%)接受了阴道环扎术。两组产妇的人口统计学特征相同,但在产科病史以及宫颈环扎术的手术适应症方面却有显著差异。阴道镜组和腹腔镜组的早期早产率和第二孕期流产率相同(8%),与文献报道相当。腹腔镜组的手术时间更长,但住院时间相似。两组患者均未出现术中并发症:结论:腹腔镜手术通常只适用于阴道环扎术失败的妇女,但已被证明同样安全有效,因此可以推荐给更多妇女。需要进行前瞻性随机研究,以提供有关该主题的新的确凿数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信