SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology / 2019 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1

A comparison of emergency and therapeutic modified Shirodkar cerclage: an analysis of 38 consecutive cases

Acil ve terapötik modifiye Shirodkar serklajın karşılaştırılması: 38 olgunun analizi

Alper BAŞBUĞ
Ozan DOĞAN
Pages
1–6
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Both methods, however, protect against advanced prematurity, which causes neonatal loss.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of patients with emergency versus therapeutic cerclage.Materials and Methods: The study included 38 female patients who underwent cervical cerclage using the modified Shirodkar method in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of Düzce University Medical Faculty Hospital and Düzce Atatürk State Hospital.Results: The operating time for the emergency cerclage group was significantly longer than that of the therapeutic group (30.40 minutes vs 19.85 minutes,p=0.001).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Following the cerclage procedure, the cervical length was longer in the therapeutic cerclage group [29.90 millimeters (mm) vs. 22.45 mm,p=0.001].
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Both methods, however, protect against advanced prematurity, which causes neonatal loss.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of patients with emergency versus therapeutic cerclage.Materials and Methods: The study included 38 female patients who underwent cervical cerclage using the modified Shirodkar method in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of Düzce University Medical Faculty Hospital and Düzce Atatürk State Hospital.Results: The operating time for the emergency cerclage group was significantly longer than that of the therapeutic group (30.40 minutes vs 19.85 minutes,p=0.001). Following the cerclage procedure, the cervical length was longer in the therapeutic cerclage group [29.90 millimeters (mm) vs. 22.45 mm,p=0.001]. The cerclage to birth interval was also longer in the therapeutic group (91 vs. 138 days).Conclusion: In comparison with therapeutic cerclage, the total duration of pregnancy after emergency cerclage is shorter, and newborns have a greaterneed for intensive care. Both methods, however, protect against advanced prematurity, which causes neonatal loss.

Özet

Amaç: Acil ve terapötik serklajlı olguların maternal ve neonatal sonuçlarını karşılaştırmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Düzce Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği ve Düzce Atatürk Devlet Hastanesi’nde modifiye Shirodkar yöntemi ile servikal serklaj uygulanan 38 kadın hasta çalışmaya alındı.Bulgular: Acil serklaj grubunun çalışma süresi, terapötik gruba göre anlamlı olarak daha uzundu (30,40 dakikaya 19,85 dakika, p=0,001). Serklaj işleminden sonra, servikal uzunluk terapötik serklaj grubunda daha uzundu (29,90 mm’ye 22,45 mm, p=0,001). Doğum aralığı, terapötik grupta daha uzundu (91 güne 138 gün).Sonuç: Terapötik serklaj ile kıyaslandığında, acil serklajdan sonraki toplam gebelik süresi kısadır ve yenidoğanların yoğun bakım ihtiyacı daha yüksektir. Bununla birlikte, her iki yöntem de, neonatal kayba neden olan ileri prematüre karşı koruma sağlar.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞBUĞ, A., DOĞAN, O. (2022). A comparison of emergency and therapeutic modified Shirodkar cerclage: an analysis of 38 consecutive cases. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1, 1–6. https://ajindex.com/articles/612989

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet 2008;371:75-84
  2. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: Final data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015;64:1-64
  3. Treyvaud K. Parent and family outcomes following very preterm or very low birth weight birth: a review. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19:131-5
  4. Cram LF, Zapata MI, Toy EC, Baker B. Genitourinary infections and their association with preterm labor. Am Fam Physician 2002;65:pp.241-8
  5. Romero R, Dey SK, Fisher SJ. Preterm labor: one syndrome, many causes. Science 2014;345;760-5
  6. Lash AF, Lash SR. Habitual abortion; the incompetent internal os of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1950;59:68-76
  7. Frey HA, Klebanoff MA. The epidemiology, etiology, and costs of preterm birth. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;21:68-73
  8. Kassanos D, Salamalekis E, Vitoratos N, Panayotopoulos N, Loghis C, Creatsas C. The value of transvaginal ultrasonography in diagnosis and management of cervical incompetence. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2001;28:266-8
  9. Kurup M, Goldkrand JW. Cervical incompetence: elective, emergent, or urgent cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:240-6
  10. McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1957;64:346-50
  11. Shirodkar, VN. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy. Antiseptic 1955;52:299
  12. Benson RC, Durfee RB. Transabdominal cervico uterine cerclage during pregnancy for the treatment of cervical incompetency. Obstet Gynecol 1965;25:145-55
  13. Cerclage: Shirodkar, McDonald, and Modifications.Wood SL, Owen J - Clin Obstet Gynecol - June 1, 2016;59:302-10
  14. WongCH, ChenCP, WangKG, SunFJ, Chen CY. Comparison of two cervical cerclages forthe prevention of preterm birth and neonatal complications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;30:551-5
  15. Berghella V, Haas S, Chervoneva I, Hyslop T. Patients with prior second-trimester loss: prophylactic cerclage or serial transvaginal sonograms? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:747-55
  16. Guzman ER, Forster JK, Vintzileos AM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women treated with elective versus ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:323-7
  17. Practice Bulletin No. 130: prediction and prevention of preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:964-7 18- Zhu L-Q, Chen H, Chen L-B, et al. Effects of Emergency Cervical Cerclage on Pregnancy Outcome: A Ret