Removal Versus Retention of Cervical Cerclage With Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT One predictor of preterm birth (PTB) is a short cervical length before 24 weeks of gestation. For pregnant women with short cervical length and a history of PTB, cervical cerclage plus progesterone is offered. This procedure has been shown to reduce the risk of PTB, pregnancy loss, and perinatal morbidity and mortality. However, it also increases the risk of preterm, premature rupture of membrane (pPROM). When pPROM occurs, the decision must be made to either remove or retain the cerclage. This decision is a challenge due to a lack of evidence to support retaining cerclage, which could prolong the duration of pregnancy, or removing it, which may decrease the risk chorioamnionitis. In addition, guidelines from international societies are conflicting: a practice bulletin from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists regards both removal and retention of cerclage in pregnancies complicated with pPROM as reasonable options, whereas a practice guideline from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the removal of cerclage. The aim of this study was to compare the removal of cervical cerclage with its retention on maternal and perinatal outcomes. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis using an electronic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases in February 2023. Included were prospective and retrospective publications, reported in English, which evaluated perinatal outcomes of removing or retaining cervical cerclage complicated by pPROM. Excluded were case reports, case series, review articles, letters to the editors, or editorials. The primary outcomes were pregnancy latency from pPROM >48 hours and >7 days. Quality assessment of the included studies used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 6 studies, representing 377 women (169 in the removal group and 208 in the retention group), were included in this systematic review. The removal group had significantly lower rates of pregnancy latency than the retention group at >48 hours (47% vs 85%; odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07–0.31; P < 0.0001) and >7 days (33% vs 57%; OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11–0.83; P = 0.02). However, the removal group also had lower rates than the retention groups of chorioamnionitis (29% vs 41%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34–0.96; P = 0.03) and Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes (16% vs 43%; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08–0.56; P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in the rates of postpartum endometritis, cesarean delivery, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis, intraventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, birthweight, fetal death, and neonatal mortality. In conclusion, the group that had cervical cerclage removal had a lower risk of experiencing pregnancy latency at >48 hours and >7 days than the group with cerclage retention. However, the retention group had a higher risk of chorioamnionitis and Apgar <7 at 5 minutes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,028 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».