Transabdominal cerclage during pregnancy: A retrospective single operator series over a quarter century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the pregnancy outcomes and complications observed in a series of cases of transabdominal cerclage (TAC), which is reserved for highly selected women with recurrent mid-trimester pregnancy loss, due to cervical insufficiency. METHODS: A retrospective audit covering 25 years (January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2021) was performed at the Obstetric Special Care division, Tygerberg Academic Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. All 118 pregnancies from 94 procedures, operated and managed by the principal author were included for descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-four (91.3%) of the 92 first pregnancies after first insertion had successful outcomes. All second and third pregnancies (24/24; 100%) were successful. Eight pregnancies did not achieve viability, two women (2/8) did however achieve a successful pregnancy after a subsequent repeat TAC procedure. For the viable pregnancies (110/118), the median gestational age at delivery was 37 weeks (range 28-39 weeks). The median intraoperative blood loss during cerclage insertion was 100 ml (range 25-750 ml). CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, TAC during pregnancy is a safe and effective operation, when other less invasive procedures have failed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".