[不同胎龄宫颈长度≤15mm双胎妊娠行宫颈环扎术的临床效果分析]。

L H Wang, M Pan
{"title":"[不同胎龄宫颈长度≤15mm双胎妊娠行宫颈环扎术的临床效果分析]。","authors":"L H Wang, M Pan","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20241018-00560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To investigate the clinical effect of cervical cerclage at different gestational weeks in twin pregnancy with cervical length (CL)≤15 mm. <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective cohort study. Eighty-three twin pregnant women with CL≤15 mm detected by transvaginal ultrasound at 16-27<sup>+6</sup> weeks of gestation in Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital from January 2017 to December 2023 were enrolled. According to different treatment methods, they were divided into cervical cerclage group (47 cases) and conservative treatment group (36 cases), and stratified according to the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis (<26 weeks, ≥26 weeks). The differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of cervical cerclage on preterm birth in twin pregnant women with different CL≤15 mm diagnosis weeks. <b>Results:</b> (1) The gestational age at delivery and prolonged gestational age in the cervical cerclage group were longer than those in the conservative treatment group (median gestational age at delivery: 35.3 vs 33.0 weeks; median prolonged gestational age: 10.4 vs 7.2 weeks), and preterm birth rates before 34, 32 and 28 weeks were lower than those in the conservative treatment group [34 weeks: 23% (11/47) vs 53% (19/36); 32 weeks: 15% (7/47) vs 39% (14/36); 28 weeks: 4% (2/47) vs 25% (9/36)], the differences were statistically significant (all <i>P</i><0.05). There were no significant differences in the rates of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and preterm premature rupture of membranes between the two groups (all <i>P></i>0.05). (2) When gestational age at CL≤15 mm diagnosis was <26 weeks, pregnancy outcomes in the cervical cerclage group were better than those in the conservative treatment group, including gestational age at delivery (median: 35.4 vs 31.3 weeks) and prolonged gestational age (median: 11.1 vs 5.6 weeks), neonatal birth weight [(2 246±519) vs (1 594±691) g], incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes [19% (13/68) vs 56% (19/34)], and proportion of live births [100% (68/68) vs 82% (28/34)], respectively; the differences were statistically significant (all <i>P</i><0.05). When the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was ≥26 weeks, there were no statistically significant difference in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups (all <i>P</i>>0.05). (3) Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that when the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was <26 weeks, cervical cerclage reduced the risk of preterm birth before 34 weeks (a<i>OR</i>=0.10, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.02-0.51; <i>P</i><0.05), 32 weeks (a<i>OR</i>=0.11, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.02-0.58; <i>P</i><0.05) and 28 weeks (a<i>OR</i>=0.04, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.01-0.65; <i>P</i><0.05). When the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was ≥26 weeks, cervical cerclage did not reduce the risk of preterm birth before 34, 32 and 28 weeks of gestation (all <i>P</i>>0.05). <b>Conclusions:</b> Cervical cerclage might reduce the risk of preterm birth and improve neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies with CL≤15 mm before 26 weeks. However, cerclage showed no advantage over conservative treatment in twin pregnancies with CL≤15 mm over 26 weeks.</p>","PeriodicalId":10050,"journal":{"name":"中华妇产科杂志","volume":"60 2","pages":"99-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Analysis of clinical effect of cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies with cervical length ≤15 mm at different gestational ages].\",\"authors\":\"L H Wang, M Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20241018-00560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To investigate the clinical effect of cervical cerclage at different gestational weeks in twin pregnancy with cervical length (CL)≤15 mm. <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective cohort study. Eighty-three twin pregnant women with CL≤15 mm detected by transvaginal ultrasound at 16-27<sup>+6</sup> weeks of gestation in Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital from January 2017 to December 2023 were enrolled. According to different treatment methods, they were divided into cervical cerclage group (47 cases) and conservative treatment group (36 cases), and stratified according to the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis (<26 weeks, ≥26 weeks). The differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of cervical cerclage on preterm birth in twin pregnant women with different CL≤15 mm diagnosis weeks. <b>Results:</b> (1) The gestational age at delivery and prolonged gestational age in the cervical cerclage group were longer than those in the conservative treatment group (median gestational age at delivery: 35.3 vs 33.0 weeks; median prolonged gestational age: 10.4 vs 7.2 weeks), and preterm birth rates before 34, 32 and 28 weeks were lower than those in the conservative treatment group [34 weeks: 23% (11/47) vs 53% (19/36); 32 weeks: 15% (7/47) vs 39% (14/36); 28 weeks: 4% (2/47) vs 25% (9/36)], the differences were statistically significant (all <i>P</i><0.05). There were no significant differences in the rates of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and preterm premature rupture of membranes between the two groups (all <i>P></i>0.05). (2) When gestational age at CL≤15 mm diagnosis was <26 weeks, pregnancy outcomes in the cervical cerclage group were better than those in the conservative treatment group, including gestational age at delivery (median: 35.4 vs 31.3 weeks) and prolonged gestational age (median: 11.1 vs 5.6 weeks), neonatal birth weight [(2 246±519) vs (1 594±691) g], incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes [19% (13/68) vs 56% (19/34)], and proportion of live births [100% (68/68) vs 82% (28/34)], respectively; the differences were statistically significant (all <i>P</i><0.05). When the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was ≥26 weeks, there were no statistically significant difference in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups (all <i>P</i>>0.05). (3) Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that when the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was <26 weeks, cervical cerclage reduced the risk of preterm birth before 34 weeks (a<i>OR</i>=0.10, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.02-0.51; <i>P</i><0.05), 32 weeks (a<i>OR</i>=0.11, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.02-0.58; <i>P</i><0.05) and 28 weeks (a<i>OR</i>=0.04, 95%<i>CI</i>: 0.01-0.65; <i>P</i><0.05). When the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was ≥26 weeks, cervical cerclage did not reduce the risk of preterm birth before 34, 32 and 28 weeks of gestation (all <i>P</i>>0.05). <b>Conclusions:</b> Cervical cerclage might reduce the risk of preterm birth and improve neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies with CL≤15 mm before 26 weeks. However, cerclage showed no advantage over conservative treatment in twin pregnancies with CL≤15 mm over 26 weeks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华妇产科杂志\",\"volume\":\"60 2\",\"pages\":\"99-104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华妇产科杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20241018-00560\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华妇产科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20241018-00560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨宫颈长度≤15mm双胎妊娠不同孕周宫颈环扎术的临床效果。方法:回顾性队列研究。选取2017年1月至2023年12月福建省妇幼保健院16-27+6周经阴道超声检测CL≤15mm的双胎孕妇83例。根据治疗方法的不同,将其分为宫颈环切术组(47例)和保守治疗组(36例),并根据胎龄诊断CL≤15 mm进行分层(结果:(1)宫颈环切术组的分娩胎龄和延长胎龄均长于保守治疗组(分娩中位胎龄:35.3 vs 33.0周;中位延长胎龄:10.4周vs 7.2周),34周、32周和28周前早产率低于保守治疗组[34周:23% (11/47)vs 53% (19/36);32周:15% (7/47)vs 39% (14/36);28周:4% (2/47)vs 25%(9/36)],差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。(2)胎龄CL≤15 mm时诊断为PP(0.05)。(3)多因素logistic回归分析显示,胎龄CL≤15 mm时诊断OR=0.10, 95%CI: 0.02 ~ 0.51;Por =0.11, 95%ci: 0.02-0.58;p =0.04, 95%ci: 0.01-0.65;页> 0.05)。结论:宫颈环切术可降低26周前CL≤15mm双胎妊娠的早产风险,改善新生儿结局。然而,在26周内CL≤15mm的双胎妊娠中,环扎术与保守治疗相比没有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Analysis of clinical effect of cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies with cervical length ≤15 mm at different gestational ages].

Objective: To investigate the clinical effect of cervical cerclage at different gestational weeks in twin pregnancy with cervical length (CL)≤15 mm. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Eighty-three twin pregnant women with CL≤15 mm detected by transvaginal ultrasound at 16-27+6 weeks of gestation in Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital from January 2017 to December 2023 were enrolled. According to different treatment methods, they were divided into cervical cerclage group (47 cases) and conservative treatment group (36 cases), and stratified according to the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis (<26 weeks, ≥26 weeks). The differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of cervical cerclage on preterm birth in twin pregnant women with different CL≤15 mm diagnosis weeks. Results: (1) The gestational age at delivery and prolonged gestational age in the cervical cerclage group were longer than those in the conservative treatment group (median gestational age at delivery: 35.3 vs 33.0 weeks; median prolonged gestational age: 10.4 vs 7.2 weeks), and preterm birth rates before 34, 32 and 28 weeks were lower than those in the conservative treatment group [34 weeks: 23% (11/47) vs 53% (19/36); 32 weeks: 15% (7/47) vs 39% (14/36); 28 weeks: 4% (2/47) vs 25% (9/36)], the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the rates of preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and preterm premature rupture of membranes between the two groups (all P>0.05). (2) When gestational age at CL≤15 mm diagnosis was <26 weeks, pregnancy outcomes in the cervical cerclage group were better than those in the conservative treatment group, including gestational age at delivery (median: 35.4 vs 31.3 weeks) and prolonged gestational age (median: 11.1 vs 5.6 weeks), neonatal birth weight [(2 246±519) vs (1 594±691) g], incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes [19% (13/68) vs 56% (19/34)], and proportion of live births [100% (68/68) vs 82% (28/34)], respectively; the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). When the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was ≥26 weeks, there were no statistically significant difference in pregnancy outcomes between the two groups (all P>0.05). (3) Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that when the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was <26 weeks, cervical cerclage reduced the risk of preterm birth before 34 weeks (aOR=0.10, 95%CI: 0.02-0.51; P<0.05), 32 weeks (aOR=0.11, 95%CI: 0.02-0.58; P<0.05) and 28 weeks (aOR=0.04, 95%CI: 0.01-0.65; P<0.05). When the gestational age of CL≤15 mm diagnosis was ≥26 weeks, cervical cerclage did not reduce the risk of preterm birth before 34, 32 and 28 weeks of gestation (all P>0.05). Conclusions: Cervical cerclage might reduce the risk of preterm birth and improve neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies with CL≤15 mm before 26 weeks. However, cerclage showed no advantage over conservative treatment in twin pregnancies with CL≤15 mm over 26 weeks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12682
期刊介绍:
×
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