Comparison of maternal-fetal outcomes between laparoscopic cervicoisthmic cerclage and McDonald cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency
10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20220908-00569
- VernacularTitle:McDonald子宫颈环扎术与腹腔镜子宫峡部环扎术治疗子宫颈机能不全的围产结局比较
- Author:
Songqing DENG
1
;
Yajing WEI
;
Yanchun LIANG
;
Zilian WANG
Author Information
1. 中山大学附属第一医院妇产科，广州 510080
- Keywords:
Uterine cervical incompetence;
Cerclage, cervical;
Laparoscopes;
Treatment outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
2023;58(2):84-90
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the maternal and fetal outcomes of women with cervical insufficiency (CI) undergoing McDonald cerclage (MC) and laparoscopic cervicoisthmic cerclage (LCC), so as to provide evidence for the selection of cerclage methods.Methods:A retrospective trial was carried out in the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2010 to December 2020. A total of 221 women who underwent the prophylactic cerclage were divided into MC group ( n=54), LCC with MC history group ( n=28) and LCC without MC history group ( n=129) by the mode of operation and whether the pregnant women who underwent LCC had MC history. General clinical data, pregnancy complications and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the three groups. Results:(1) General clinical data: the proportion of women accepted cervical cerclage during pregnancy in MC group, LCC with MC history group and LCC without MC history group were 100.0% (54/54), 7.1% (2/28) and 27.1% (35/129), respectively ( P<0.001). The indications of the three groups showed statistical significance ( P=0.003), and the main indication was the history of abortion in the second and third trimester [75.9% (41/54) vs 89.3% (25/28) vs 84.5% (109/129)]. (2) Pregnancy complications: the incidence of abnormal fetal position [7.8% (4/51) vs 17.4% (4/23) vs 19.8% (24/121)], placenta accrete [5.9% (3/51) vs 13.0% (3/23) vs 11.6% (14/121)], uterine rupture [0 vs 4.3% (1/23) vs 5.8% (7/121)] in the MC group were all lower than those in LCC with MC history and LCC without MC history groups. However, there were no statistical significances (all P>0.05). Intrauterine inflammation or chorioamnionitis [15.7% (8/51) vs 0 vs 0.8% (1/121)] and premature rupture of membrane [23.5% (12/51) vs 4.3% (1/23) vs 0] were both significantly higher in MC group than those in LCC with MC history and LCC without MC history groups (all P<0.001). (3) Pregnancy outcomes: the cesarean section rate was significantly lower in MC group (41.2%, 21/51) than that in LCC with MC history group (100.0%, 23/23) and LCC without MC history group (100.0%, 121/121; P<0.001). MC group was associated with lower expenditure than LCC with MC history and LCC without MC history groups (12 169 vs 26 438 vs 27 783 yuan, P<0.001). The success rates of live birth cerclage did not differ significantly in MC (94.4%, 51/54), LCC with MC history (82.1%, 23/28) and LCC without MC history (93.8%, 121/129) groups ( χ2=5.649, P=0.059). There was no significant difference in neonatal intensive care unit occupancy, neonatal birth weight and neonatal asphyxia between the three groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:Both LCC and MC are the treatment choice for women with CI, which may get similar liver birth. However, MC has the advantages of low cesarean section rate, economical and easy operation. Therefore, MC is recommended as the first choice for CI patients, and LCC is for women with failed MC.
