Should it really be called a heroic cerclage? The obstetrical results of emergency late second-trimester cerclage compared with early history-indicated elective cerclage: a retrospective trial.

Abstract

Women diagnosed with mid-trimester cervical insufficiency and dilatation are offered interventions to salvage and support the cervix, where the mainstay of therapy is emergency cervical cerclage. However, considering the significant morbidity associated with delivery in the extreme prematurity period, some women may opt for pregnancy termination. In addition, it is expected that elective cerclage in a subsequent pregnancy may yield better obstetrical results. The objective of this study was, therefore, to compare the obstetrical outcomes of emergency cerclage versus elective cerclage. This is a retrospective cohort study of the pregnancy outcomes of women with a singleton pregnancy who underwent cervical cerclage at our institution between December 2008 and November 2021. Women who underwent emergency cervical cerclage due to painless dilatation in the second trimester were compared with women who underwent elective cerclage. Overall, 32 women who underwent emergency cerclage and 183 women who underwent elective cerclage were included. No cases of iatrogenic membrane rupture were noted during the cerclage procedure. There was no statistical difference between the emergency cerclage group and the elective cerclage group in the primary outcomes: gestational age at delivery (35.8 + 4.7 vs 36.3 + 4.9, p = 0.58, respectively), delivery in the extreme prematurity period (between 24 and 28 gestational weeks, 6.5% vs 2.3%, p = 0.21, respectively), and fetal or neonatal death (6.9% vs 6.3%, p = 0.91, respectively). Although there are much less favourable circumstances, emergency cerclage is a safe procedure with comparable obstetrical outcomes to elective cerclage. Patient selection and experienced medical team may play a significant role in those cases.