The effectiveness of transabdominal cerclage placement via laparoscopy or laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Failure or technical impossibility to place a prophylactic transvaginal cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency justifies the need for an abdominal cerclage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we studied the obstetrical and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage approaches performed before (interval) or during pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies on laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placement in February 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies on laparoscopic or open laparotomy placement of an abdominal cerclage with at least 2 patients that reported on our primary outcomes were included. METHODS: All included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias with an adjusted Quality in Prognosis Study tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary outcomes, namely fetal survival and gestational age at delivery. RESULTS: Our search yielded 83 studies with a total of 3398 patients; 1869 of those underwent laparoscopic cerclage placement and 1529 underwent open laparotomy placements. No studies directly compared the 2 cerclage approaches. The survival (overall, 91.2%) and gestational age at delivery (overall, 36.6 weeks) were not statistically different between the approaches. For the procedure during pregnancy, the laparoscopic group showed significantly less blood loss >400 mL (0% vs 3%), a slightly lower procedure-related fetal loss (0% vs 1%), a shorter hospital stay but a longer operation duration than the open laparotomy group. For the interval cerclages, the laparoscopic group showed significantly fewer wound infections (0% vs 3%) and a shorter hospital stay than the open laparotomy group, but showed comparable offspring preterm birth and survival rates. CONCLUSION: Based on indirect comparisons, the laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placements at interval or during pregnancy produced similar outcomes in terms of survival and gestational age at delivery. There are some small differences in perioperative care, surgical complications, interventions, and complications during pregnancy. This implies that both methods of abdominal cerclage placement have high success rates and thus we cannot conclude that one of the methods is superior for the placement of an abdominal cerclage.

The efficacy of emergency cervical cerclage in singleton and twin pregnancies: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: An emergency (rescue) cervical cerclage can be offered to pregnant women presenting with dilatation and prolapsed membranes in the second trimester of pregnancy because of cervical insufficiency. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an emergency cerclage in both singleton and twin pregnancies in the prevention of extreme premature birth. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase from inception to June 2022 for transvaginal cervical emergency cerclages. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies on transvaginal cervical emergency cerclages with at least 5 patients and reporting survival were included. METHODS: Included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias with an adjusted Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed for the primary outcome: survival. RESULTS: Our search yielded 96 studies, incorporating 3239 women, including 14 studies with an expectant management control group, incorporating 746 women. Overall survival after cervical emergency cerclage was 74%, with a fetal survival of 88% and neonatal survival of 90%. Singleton and twin pregnancies showed similar survival, with a pregnancy prolongation of 52 and 37 days and a gestational age at delivery of 30 and 28 weeks, respectively. Meta-regression analyses indicated a significant inverse association between mean gestational age at diagnosis and pregnancy prolongation and no association between dilatation or gestational age at diagnosis and gestational age at delivery. Compared with expectant management, emergency cerclage significantly increased overall survival by 43%, fetal survival by 17% and neonatal survival by 22%, along with a significant pregnancy prolongation of 37 days and reduction in delivery at <28 weeks of gestation of 55%. These effects were more profound in singleton pregnancies than in twin pregnancies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review indicates that, in pregnancies threatened by extreme premature birth because of cervical insufficiency, emergency cerclage leads to significantly higher survival, accompanied by significant pregnancy prolongation and reduction in delivery at <28 weeks of gestation, compared with expectant management. The mean gestational age at delivery was 30 weeks, independent of dilatation or gestational age at diagnosis. Survival was similar for singleton and twin pregnancies, implying that emergency cerclage should be considered in both.