4.5 Article

The role of prophylactic cerclage in preventing preterm delivery after electrosurgical conization

期刊

JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 230-236

出版社

KOREAN SOC GYNECOLOGY ONCOLOGY & COLPOSCOPY
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2010.21.4.230

关键词

Conization; Preterm birth; Cervical cerclage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate pregnancy outcomes after electrosurgical conization. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of 56 singleton pregnancies after electrosurgical conization of the uterine cervix. Of the 56 cases, 25 women underwent prophylactic cerclage with McDonald procedure (cerclage group), and 31 were managed expectantly (expectant group). Pregnancy outcomes including rate of preterm delivery were compared, and the effect of potential risk factors such as depth of cone, interval between conization and pregnancy, and cervical length on the risk of preterm delivery was assessed. Results: The rate of preterm delivery was significantly higher in women with a history of electrosurgical conization than those without (32.1% vs. 15.2%, p<0.001). However, preterm delivery rate was not different between the two groups (expectant group vs. cerclage group; <28 week, 6.5% vs. 8.0%, p=1.000; <34 week, 19.4% vs. 20.0%, p=1.000; <37 week, 29.0% vs. 36.0%, p=0.579). All obstetric and neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups. Even when we confined the study subjects to 19 women (19/56, 33.9%) with cervical length less than 25 mm, the preterm delivery rate also was not significantly different between the expectant (n=7) and cerclage group (n=12). Finally, the potential risk factors for preterm delivery were not associated with risk of preterm delivery in patients with a history of electrosurgical conization. Conclusion: The rate of preterm delivery was significantly higher in women with a history of electrosurgical conization before pregnancy. However, prophylactic cervical cerclage did not prevent preterm delivery in these patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据