经阴道宫颈环扎术治疗复发性流产合并宫颈机能不全的疗效分析
Transvaginal Cervical Cerclage for Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion with Cervical Insufficiency
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2022.125589, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 260  浏览: 342  科研立项经费支持
作者: 钟兰萍, 陶丽梅, 马 蕊, 康晓敏*:云南省第一人民医院,昆明理工大学附属医院生殖医学科,云南 昆明
关键词: 宫颈机能不全经阴道宫颈环扎术复发性流产妊娠结局Cervical Incompetence Transvaginal Cervical Cerclage Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion Pregnancy Outcomes
摘要: 目的:评价经阴道宫颈环扎术(transvaginal cervical cerclage, TVC)对复发性流产(recurrent sponta-neous abortion, RSA)合并宫颈机能不全(cervical insufficiency, CI)患者的治疗效果。方法:选取2019年1月至2021年12月在我院接受TVC治疗合并CI的RSA患者作为研究对象,根据手术时机将其分为治疗性宫颈环扎组(80例)、紧急性宫颈环扎组(18例)及选择性宫颈环扎组(40例),并对其临床疗效进行综合分析。结果:与紧急性宫颈环扎相比,选择性宫颈环扎和治疗性宫颈环扎至分娩间隔明显延长(35.4天 vs 105.3天;35.4天 vs 92.4天;P < 0.001)。出生体重 ≥ 2000 g新生儿比率在治疗性宫颈环扎组最高(87.5%),其次是选择性宫颈环扎组(65.0%)和紧急性宫颈环扎组(33.3%),差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。与选择性宫颈环扎组(72.22%)和紧急性宫颈环扎组(77.5%)相比,治疗性宫颈环扎组患者的活产率(95%)更高,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。无论是选择性宫颈环扎组还是治疗性宫颈环扎组,相比流产次数 ≥ 3次的患者,流产次数 < 3次的患者在分娩时有更长的胎龄(P < 0.05)。在选择性宫颈环扎组中,相比孕20周后行宫颈环扎,孕20周前行宫颈环扎的患者的新生儿体重更重,分娩的孕周更大(P < 0.05;P < 0.01)。在治疗性宫颈环扎组中,相比孕20周后行宫颈环扎,在孕20周前进行宫颈环扎患者的新生儿体重更重(P < 0.01)。结论:TVC是一种有效的干预措施,可以延长合并CI的RSA患者孕周,预防早产发生,进行宫颈环扎术的最佳手术时间应在妊娠20周之前。
Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the effect of Transvaginal cervical cerclage (TVC) for Recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA) patients with cervical insufficiency (CI). Method: RSA patients with CI treated in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021. These patients who received TVC were categorized into emergent, elective and therapeutic groups. Results: A significant pregnancy prolongation was observed in the elective and therapeutic group (105.3 d and 92.4 d, respectively), compared with the emergent group (35.4 d, P < 0.001). Incidence of birth weight ≥ 2000 g tended to be highest in therapeutic group (87.5%), followed by the elective (65.0%) and the emergency groups (33.3%, respectively, P < 0.05). Patients in therapeutic group tended to have higher live birth rate (95%), compared with the elective and emergent group (72.22% and 77.5%, respectively, P < 0.05). Com-pared to women who had ≥ 3 abortions, those who had < 3 abortions were more likely to have long-er gestation week at delivery whether in the elective group or therapeutic group (P < 0.05). Those women in the elective group who were cerclaged before 20th gestation week could have heavier neonate weight and longer gestation week than those who were cerclaged after 20th gestation week (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). Those women who were therapeutic cerclaged before 20th gestation week could have heavier neonate weight than the woman who were cerclaged after 20th gestation week (P < 0.01). Conclusion: TVC is an efficacious intervention that prolongs pregnancy and prevents preterm births in RSA patients with CI. The best time to do a elective cerclage is be-fore the gestional age of 20 weeks.
文章引用:钟兰萍, 陶丽梅, 马蕊, 康晓敏. 经阴道宫颈环扎术治疗复发性流产合并宫颈机能不全的疗效分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2022, 12(5): 4072-4079. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2022.125589

1. 引言

宫颈机能不全(cervical insufficiency, CI)在临床上表现为妊娠中晚期宫颈管无痛性、进行性扩张和缩短 [1],其发生率约为0.2%,在妊娠中期流产病因中约占8% [2] [3] [4] [5]。此外,CI亦被视为晚期流产及早产的主要危险因素 [6] [7] [8] [9]。预防晚期流产与早产的措施主要包括卧床休息、阴道塞黄体酮、宫颈栓塞等,但预防措施仍然有限 [10] [11]。

自20世纪50年代以来,TVC已被广泛用于CI的治疗。然而关于其在预防PTB方面的疗效仍有争议 [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]。根据手术时机TVC可分为选择性宫颈环扎术、治疗性宫颈环扎术及紧急性宫颈环扎术。选择性宫颈环扎术主要针对既往存在产科或妇科相关病史的CI患者;治疗性宫颈环扎术主要适用于经阴道超声检查发现宫颈长度缩短的患者;紧急性宫颈环扎术适用于经阴道窥器检查确认有宫颈扩张和胎膜脱垂的患者 [17] [18]。越来越多的证据显示既往自然流产史会增加育龄期女性早产的风险。据报道,TVC只对既往有三次或三次以上自然流产史的病例有明显益处 [19]。CI是RSA病因之一,哪些RSA患者更适合接受TVC治疗目前尚未明确。

本研究收集了在我院行TVC治疗合并CI的RSA患者数据进行回顾性分析,比较不同类型TVC疗效。另外,本研究还评估了流产次数对选择性和治疗性宫颈环扎术结果的影响,并评估了这些患者的手术时间,以期为此类患者的临床治疗提供科学依据。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 研究对象

选取2019年1月至2021年12月在本院接诊RSA合并CI患者作为研究对象。纳入标准:既往发生2次或2次以上无痛性的孕中晚期流产或早产史;本次治疗前有无痛性、进行性的宫颈扩张,伴或不伴羊膜囊突出宫颈口;超声测量宫颈管长度小于25 mm;本次妊娠接受了McDonald宫颈环扎术治疗。排除标准:原位环扎、多胎妊娠、环扎前胎膜早破、明显阴道出血、治疗前存在盆腔炎及羊膜炎、胎儿结构或染色体异常。

2.2. 研究方法

最终纳入的138例研究对象中,18人接受了紧急宫颈环扎术,40人接受了选择性宫颈环扎术,80人接受了治疗性宫颈环扎术。为了评估流产次数对宫颈环扎术后RSA患者妊娠结局的影响,根据流产次数(<3次与≥3次)将选择性宫颈环扎组和治疗性宫颈环扎组的患者进一步分为两个亚组进行比较。评估的主要指标是宫颈环扎-分娩时间间隔和活产率。次要指标包括分娩时的孕周、出生体重、1和5分钟的Apgar评分等。

宫颈环扎术分为以下几类:1) 选择性宫颈环扎术(病史指征):产科病史中的妊娠丢失、宫颈创伤/手术(如宫颈锥切);2) 治疗性宫颈环扎术(超声指征):宫颈长度短或超声显示宫颈扩张;3) 紧急宫颈环扎术(妇检指征):宫颈无痛性、进行性扩张,伴或不伴羊膜囊突出宫颈口。

2.3. 手术方式

本研究采用McDonald法进行宫颈环扎,用4号双股涤纶缝合线在宫颈周围4~6个咬合处进行宫颈环的缝合 [20]。缝合结束后,双重打结双丝线尾端,同时留出双丝线尾约2 ~ 3 cm,便于术后对缝合线进行拆除。所有手术均由具有≥10年经验手术医师生完成。

2.4. 统计分析

本研究使用SPSS for windows 17.0进行统计分析,连续变量的数据以平均值±标准差表示,采用t检验进行比较;分类变量的比较采用卡方检验或费希尔精确检验;配对比较采用纽曼–科伊尔斯检验。当P < 0.05时,差异具有统计学意义。

3. 结果

3.1. 研究对象的人口学特征

表1列出了研究对象(138名合并CI的RSA患者)的人口学和临床特征。三组产妇的平均年龄、BMI、足月产和早产情况没有明显差异。手术时评估平均宫颈扩张程度和宫颈长度分别为(36.36 ± 6.52) mm和(23.45 ± 6.50) mm。紧急宫颈环扎组患者的平均宫颈长度比选择性宫颈环扎组和治疗性宫颈环扎组短(P < 0.001)。此外,紧急宫颈环扎组患者的宫颈扩张程度(42.46 mm)高于治疗性宫颈环扎组(36.82 mm)和选择性宫颈环扎组(32.73 mm) (P < 0.05)。所有接受环扎手术患者的平均孕周为21.8 ± 5.95周。与紧急宫颈环扎组(24.53 ± 4.19)和治疗性宫颈环扎组(和23.15 ± 5.71周)相比,选择性宫颈环扎组的孕周明显较低(17.86 ± 5.27周) (P < 0.001)。三组在胎心率、术后白细胞计数、手术时间、产后出血和住院时间方面均无明显差异(P > 0.05)。

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics for subjects (n = 138)

表1. 研究对象的人口学及相关临床特征(n = 138)

aP < 0.05,紧急宫颈环扎versus选择宫颈环扎;bP < 0.05,选择宫颈环扎versus治疗宫颈环扎;cP < 0.05,紧急宫颈环扎versus治疗宫颈环扎;*P < 0.001。

3.2. 不同的TVC对合并CI的RSA患者治疗效果

表2所示,接受TVC治疗的RSA患者活婴分娩率为90.15%。治疗性宫颈环扎组活产率高于选择宫颈环扎组和紧急宫颈环扎组(95.5% vs 82%; 95.5% vs 76.2%, P < 0.05)。活产率在选择宫颈环扎组和紧急宫颈环扎组之间没有明显差异(P > 0.05)。接受宫颈环扎治疗的患者,宫颈环扎术与分娩之间的平均间隔时间为(88.67 ± 49.96)天。与紧急宫颈环扎组相比,选择宫颈环扎组和治疗性宫颈环扎组的妊娠期都明显延长(分别为35.39 ± 32.17 vs 105.3 ± 54.3天;35.39 ± 32.17 vs 92.35 ± 43.01天,P < 0.001)。与治疗性宫颈环扎组相比,接受选择性宫颈环扎和紧急性子宫环扎术患者早产发生率更高(P < 0.05)。胎儿出生体重超过2000克的比率在治疗性宫颈环扎组最高(87.5%),其次是择期宫颈环扎组和紧急宫颈环扎组(分别为65%和33.33%,P < 0.05)。活产率在治疗性宫颈环扎组最高(95%),而选择性宫颈环扎组和紧急性宫颈环扎组的活产率较低(分别为80%和72.22%,P < 0.05)。1分钟和5分钟的Apgar评分三组间无统计学差异(P > 0.05)。

3.3. 流产次数对宫颈环扎术疗效的影响

表3所示,在治疗性宫颈环扎组与选择性宫颈环扎组中,根据既往流产次数进一步分为两组,即

Table 2. Pregnancy outcome after cervical cerclage

表2. 不同宫颈环扎术后结局指标比较

aP< 0.05,紧急宫颈环扎组versus选择宫颈环扎组;bP< 0.05,选择性宫颈环扎组versus治疗性宫颈环扎组;cP < 0.05,紧急宫颈环扎组versus治疗性宫颈环扎组;*P < 0.001。

Table 3. The outcome of elective and therapeutic cervical cerclage with different abortion times

表3. 不同流产次数在选择性宫颈环扎组与治疗性宫颈环扎组中疗效比较

流产次数 < 3与流产次数 ≥ 3。在选择性宫颈环扎组中,流产次数 < 3次的患者在分娩时孕周更大(P < 0.05),新生儿出生体重与患者的流产次数无明星相关性(P > 0.05)。在治疗性宫颈环扎组中,流产次数 < 3次的患者新生儿出生体重更大(P < 0.05),分娩孕周与患者的流产次数无明星相关性(P > 0.05)。

3.4. 不同宫颈环扎术手术时机的比较

表4所示,选择性宫颈环扎组中,孕20周前进行宫颈环扎的产妇比孕20周后进行宫颈环扎的产妇新生儿出生体重更重(3122 ± 738.3克 vs 2287.04 ± 1078.92克,P < 0.01),孕周更长(37 ± 3.23周 vs 31.74 ± 8.03周,P < 0.05)。治疗性宫颈环扎组中,孕20周前进行宫颈环扎的产妇比孕20周后进行宫颈环扎的产妇的新生儿出生体重更重(3074.13 ± 682.17克vs 2541.47 ± 804.42克,P<0.05)。

Table 4. The effect of the timing of surgery on elective and therapeutic cervical cerclage

表4. 不同手术时机在选择性宫颈环扎组与治疗性宫颈环扎组中疗效比较

4. 讨论

宫颈环扎术是一种常见的预防性干预措施,已经在妊娠中晚期流产的处理中使用了几十年 [21],然而它仍然是产科中较有争议的外科干预措施之一。Khan [22] 发现与治疗性宫颈环扎(73.3%)和紧急性宫颈环扎(47.1%)相比,选择性宫颈环扎术超过36周的分娩率最高(79.4%)。Nelson [23] 报道,治疗性宫颈环扎术在分娩时达到的孕周与选择性宫颈环扎术相似,但更容易出现未足月胎膜早破(preterm premature rupture of membranes, PPROM)和绒毛膜炎。还有研究显示治疗性宫颈环扎术对于在妊娠24周之前没有症状但经阴道超声检测出的宫颈长度缩短的患者来说是有益的 [24]。本文纳入研究对象为合并CI的RSA患者,这些患者可以从TVC中获益,宫颈环扎–分娩间隔明显延长,<36周的早产风险明显降低,新生儿出生体重增加。我们的研究结果与Khan和Nelson的研究结果有所不同,可能是因为这两项研究中治疗组的样本量有限(n < 20)。

有研究显示接受选择性宫颈环扎术的女性更有可能早产 [1],我们的研究发现与接受治疗性宫颈环扎术相比,接受紧急宫颈环扎或选择性宫颈环扎术的患者早产(≤36周)的发生率明显更高。在某种程度上因为实施选择性宫颈环扎术或紧急宫颈环扎术的患者,其胎膜暴露于阴道细菌的时间更长,从而促使阴道或宫颈感染及羊膜炎的发生,这可能是此类患者早产风险增加的原因 [11] [15]。在我们的研究中紧急宫颈环扎术的分娩成功率(76.2%)显著高于以前的报道(40%~60%) [5] [25],紧急宫颈环扎术仍是延长孕周和改善新生儿结局的一种有效治疗方法,对于此类患者的新生儿可通过使用类固醇加速胎儿肺部成熟,或考虑将其转入三级医院治疗以期获得良好结局。此外,本研究发现与流产次数 < 3次RSA患者相比,流产次数 ≥ 3次的RSA患者更有可能早产,这一特征在选择性环扎组更为明显。这可能是因为流产次数 ≥ 3次的RSA患者更有可能和/或更容易发生阴道感染,进而导致早产的发生。

合并CI的RSA患者进行TVC的手术时机目前仍存有争议。据报道,TVC治疗的最佳时间是妊娠14~24周,不应超过24周。如果时间过早,胎盘功能还没有完全成熟,手术刺激容易诱发流产,如果太晚,则可能失去手术时机 [26] [27] [28]。因此有学者建议选择性宫颈环扎术应在孕前20周进行,如果在孕20周后进行宫颈环扎术,胎膜早破、羊膜炎、宫内感染的发生风险明显增加 [29] [30]。我们的结果显示不论治疗性宫颈环扎还是选择性宫颈环扎,在孕20周前进行手术的产妇比孕20周后进行手术的产妇其新生儿体重增加,孕周更大。因此,在妊娠20周前进行宫颈环扎术可能更有利于延长胎龄和增加新生儿体重。

5. 结论

综上所述,三种类型的TVC都能有效地延长RSA患者的孕周并改善妊娠结局,TVC应被视为合并CI的RSA患者的一个可行选择。在妊娠20周前进行选择性宫颈环扎术,可以明显改善患者的孕周,增加新生儿的出生体重。无论是选择性还是治疗性宫颈环扎术,流产3次以上的患者更容易从手术中获益。

基金项目

云南省卫生健康委员会医学后备人才培养计划(H-2019048);云南省科技厅昆医联合专项(202001AY001(-129));云南省生殖妇产疾病临床医学中心开放课题(2019LCZXKF-SZ08),(zx2019-01-01)。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Vousden, N., Hezelgrave, N., Carter, J., Seed, P.T. and Shennan, A.H. (2015) Prior Ultrasound-Indicated Cerclage: How Should We Manage the Next Pregnancy? European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 188, 129-132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.007
[2] Song, J.E. and Lee, K.Y. (2015) Prediction of Out-come for Transabdominal Cerclage in Women with Cervical Insufficiency. BioMed Research International, 2015, Article ID: 985764.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/985764
[3] Drakeley, A.J., Roberts, D. and Alfirevic, Z. (2003) Cervi-cal Stitch (Cerclage) for Preventing Pregnancy Loss in Women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 1, Arti-cle No. CD003253.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003253
[4] Ioscovich, A., Popov, A., Gimelfarb, Y., Gozal, Y., Or-bach-Zinger, S., Shapiro, J., et al. (2015) Anesthetic Management of Prophylactic Cervical Cerclage: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 291, 509-512.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3391-5
[5] Ragab, A. and Mesbah, Y. (2015) To Do or Not to Do Emer-gency Cervical Cerclage (a Rescue Stitch) at 24-28 Weeks Gestation in Addition to Progesterone for Patients Coming Early in Labor? A Prospective Randomized Trial for Efficacy and Safety. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 292, 1255-1260.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3772-4
[6] Repke, J.T. (2011) Women with Prior Preterm Birth and Short Cervix: Do NOT Cerclage. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 205, 89-90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.02.080
[7] Alfirevic, Z., Owen, J., Carreras Moratonas, E., Sharp, A.N., Szychowski, J.M. and Goya, M. (2013) Vaginal Progesterone, Cerclage or Cervical Pessary for Preventing Preterm Birth in Asymptomatic Singleton Pregnant Women with a History of Preterm Birth and a Sonographic Short Cervix. Ultra-sound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 41, 146-151.
https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12300
[8] Israfil-Bayli, F., Toozs-Hobson, P., Lees, C., Slack, M. and Ismail, K.M. (2013) Pregnancy Outcome after Elective Cervical Cerclage in Relation to Type of Suture Material Used. Medical Hy-potheses, 81, 119-121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.04.003
[9] The Lancet (2008) Preterm Birth: What Can Be Done? Lancet, 371, 2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60040-9
[10] Fortner, K.B., Fitzpatrick, C.B., Grotegut, C.A., Swamy, G.K., Murtha, A.P., Heine, R.P., et al. (2012) Cervical Dilation as a Predictor of Pregnancy Outcome Following Emergency Cerclage. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 25, 1884-1888.
https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.668582
[11] Zhu, L.Q., Chen, H., Chen, L.B., Liu, Y.L., Tian, J.P., Wang, Y.H., et al. (2015) Effects of Emergency Cervical Cerclage on Pregnancy Outcome: A Retrospective Study of 158 Cases. Medical Science Monitor, 21, 1395-1401.
https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.893244
[12] Yalvac, S., Esin, S., Kocak, O., Yirci, B. and Kandemir, O. (2014) Effect of Body Mass Index on Latency Periods after History-Indicated Cervical Cerclage. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 54, 121-125.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12185
[13] Ko, H.S., Jo, Y.S., Kil, K.C., Chang, H.K., Park, Y.G., Park, I.Y., et al. (2011) The Clinical Significance of Digital Examination-Indicated Cerclage in Women with a Dilated Cervix at 14 0/7-29 6/7 Weeks. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 8, 529-536.
https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.8.529
[14] Berghella, V. and Mackeen, A.D. (2011) Cervical Length Screening with Ultrasound-Indicated Cerclage Compared with History-Indicated Cerclage for Prevention of Preterm Birth: A Me-ta-Analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 118, 148-155.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821fd5b0
[15] Ra-faeli-Yehudai, T., Kessous, R., Aricha-Tamir, B., Sheiner, E., Erez, O., Meirovitz, M., et al. (2014) The Effect of Cervi-cal Cerclage on Pregnancy Outcomes in Women Following Conization. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Med-icine, 27, 1594-1597.
https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.871254
[16] Ciancimino, L., Laganà, A.S., Imbesi, G., Chiofalo, B., Mancuso, A. and Triolo, O. (2015) Evaluation of Maternal-Fetal Outcomes after Emergency Vaginal Cerclage Performed With Shirodkar-McDonald Combined Modified Technique. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 7, 319-323.
https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2108w
[17] Abu Hashim, H., Al-Inany, H. and Kilani, Z. (2014) A Re-view of the Contemporary Evidence on Rescue Cervical Cerclage. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 124, 198-203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.08.021
[18] Melamed, N., Hiersch, L., Domniz, N., Maresky, A., Bardin, R. and Yogev, Y. (2013) Predictive Value of Cervical Length in Women with Threatened Preterm Labor. Obstet-rics & Gynecology, 122, 1279-1287.
https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000022
[19] MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage (1993) Final Report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Multicentre Random-ised Trial of Cervical Cerclage. MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage. BJOG, 100, 516-523.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15300.x
[20] Wood, S.L. and Owen, J. (2016) Cerclage: Shirodkar, McDonald, and Modifications. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 59, 302-310.
https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000190
[21] Romero, R., Yeo, L., Chaemsaithong, P., Chaiworapongsa, T. and Hassan, S.S. (2014) Progesterone to Prevent Spontaneous Preterm Birth. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medi-cine, 19, 15-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2013.10.004
[22] Khan, M.J., Ali, G., Al Tajir, G. and Sulieman, H. (2012) Evaluation of Outcomes Associated with Placement of Elective, Urgent, and Emergency Cerclage. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 62, 660-664.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-012-0233-x
[23] Nelson, L., Dola, T., Tran, T., Carter, M., Luu, H. and Dola, C. (2009) Pregnancy Outcomes Following Placement of Elective, Urgent and Emergent Cerclage. The Journal of Mater-nal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 22, 269-273.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767050802613199
[24] Abbott, D., To, M. and Shennan, A. (2012) Cervical Cerclage: A Review of Current Evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 52, 220-223.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2012.01412.x
[25] Rafael, T.J., Berghella, V. and Alfirevic, Z. (2014) Cervi-cal Stitch (Cerclage) for Preventing Preterm Birth in Multiple Pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 9, Article No. CD009166.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009166.pub2
[26] Conde-Agudelo, A., Romero, R., Nicolaides, K., Chaiworapongsa, T., O’Brien, J.M., Cetingoz, E., et al. (2013) Vaginal Progesterone vs. Cervical Cerclage for the Pre-vention of Preterm Birth in Women with a Sonographic Short Cervix, Previous Preterm Birth, and Singleton Gestation: A Systematic Review and Indirect Comparison Meta Analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 208, 42.e1-42.e18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.877
[27] Hume, H., Rebarber, A., Saltzman, D.H., Roman, A.S. and Fox, N.S. (2012) Ultrasound-Indicated Cerclage: Shirodkar vs. McDonald. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medi-cine, 25, 2690-2692.
https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.716465
[28] Gilner, J. and Biggio, J. (2016) Management of Short Cervix during Pregnancy: A Review. The American Journal of Perinatology, 33, 245-252.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1571145
[29] Orzechowski, K.M., Boelig, R., Nicholas, S.S., Baxter, J. and Berghella, V. (2015) Is Universal Cervical Length Screening Indicated in Women with Prior Term Birth? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 212, 234.E1-234.E5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.029
[30] Owen, J., Szychowski, J.M., Hankins, G., Iams, J.D., Sheffield, J.S., Perez-Delboy, A., et al. (2010) Does Midtrimester Cervical Length ≥25 mm Predict Preterm Birth in High-Risk Women? American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 203, 393.E1-393.E5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.025