To determine whether the degree of cervical lengthening after cerclage and whether serial follow-up measurements of cervical length after cerclage are predictive of pregnancy outcome.
Methods
Eighty women whose primary physician determined that a prophylactic (n = 50) or urgent cerclage (n = 30) was indicated had transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation before and after cerclage. Thereafter, most women had three additional transvaginal ultrasound examinations until 32 weeks' gestation. At each examination, the mean of three measurements was calculated. Statistical analyses were done by t test, analysis of variance, and logistic regression, with significance set at P <.05.
Results
The mean +/- standard deviation precerclage cervical length was 27.2 +/- 10.3 mm and after cerclage was 34.1 +/- 9.9 mm (n = 80, P <.001, paired t test). No significant association was found (r = -0.26) between the difference in cervical length (postcerclage - precerclage lengths) and pregnancy outcome. Patients with a prophylactic cerclage had a mean cervical length that was consistently longer in patients delivering at term compared with those who delivered preterm at 20 to 32 weeks' gestation. In the urgent cerclage group a significant difference in cervical length between those who delivered at term compared with preterm was evident only at 28 to 32 weeks.
Conclusion
The increase in cervical length after cerclage is not predictive of term delivery. Serial cervical length measurements in the late second or early third trimester predict preterm birth but could provide earlier warning in patients with a prophylactic cerclage than in patients with urgent cerclage.
PMID 10960624 10960624 DOI 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00924-8 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00924-8
Cite this article
Dijkstra, K., Funai, E. F., O'Neill, L., Rebarber, A., Paidas, M. J., & Young, B. K. (2000). Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery. Obstetrics and gynecology, 96(3), 346-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00924-8
Dijkstra K, Funai EF, O'Neill L, Rebarber A, Paidas MJ, Young BK. Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(3):346-350. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00924-8
Dijkstra, K., et al. "Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 96, no. 3, 2000, pp. 346-350.
Our purpose was to determine whether perioperative transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the incompetent cervix treated with emergency cerclage is predictive of pregnancy outcome. Twenty-nine women who underwent emergency cerclage at 16 to 26 weeks of gestation had transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix within 48 hours before and after surgery and at least three times thereafter until 28 weeks of gestation. The following (1) funnel width, (2) funnel length, (3) endocervical canal length, (4) the distance between the internal and external os, (5) upper cervix (length of closed endocervical canal above the cervical cerclage), (6) lower cervix (endocervical canal length below suture), and (7) cervical index (1+ Funnel length/Endocervical canal length). Values are reported as the median in millimeters, and statistical analysis was performed by use of the Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Spearman rank correlation, 2 x 2 contingency tables, and multiple regression analysis with significance set at p < 0.05. Cerclage procedures resulted in significant improvement in postoperative median measurements of funnel width (15 vs 4.0 mm, p < 0.0001), funnel length (29 vs 3 mm, p < 0.0001), and endocervical canal length (2 vs 27 mm, p < 0.0001). There was a significant relationship between preoperative funnel width (r = -0.51, p = 0.007), postoperative endocervical canal length (r = 0.39, p = 0.04), length of the lower cervix (r = 0.39, p = 0.038), and the cervical index (r = -0.39, p = 0.038). An upper cervical length < 10 mm was a good predictor of delivery before 36 weeks of gestation, sensitivity 85.7% (12/14), specificity 66.7% (10/15), positive predictive value 70.6% (12/17), negative predictive value 83% (10/12), and Fisher's exact p = 0.008. Postoperatively all patients had upper cervical lengths < 10 mm by 28 weeks of gestation. Preoperative digital assessments of cervical dilatation before surgery did not correlate with gestational age at birth (r = -0.031, p = 0.36). In cases of cervical incompetence treated with emergency cerclage, perioperative transvaginal ultrasonographic assessment of the cervix reveals that the procedure results in improved ultrasonographic status of the cervix and that the ultrasonographic cervical findings before and after surgery correlate with pregnancy outcome.
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
To assess the Pearl Index for risk of ectopic pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) with hormonal reservoirs of 13.5 mg, 19.5 mg, or 52 mg. This was a retrospective cohort study. Women diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, were identified through the electronic medical record system. The final analysis included 2,252 cases of ectopic pregnancy. Information on age, reproductive and medical history, as well as current use of contraception was retrieved. The time of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion before ectopic pregnancy and the numbers of sold LNG-IUS during the study period were used to calculate the incidence rate for ectopic pregnancy during use per 100 woman-years (Pearl Index). Among women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, 105 presented with a known type of hormonal IUD in situ, of whom 94 were included in the calculations of the Pearl Index. The estimated Pearl Index for ectopic pregnancy was 0.136 (95% CI 0.106-0.176) for the LNG-IUS 13.5-mg, 0.037 (95% CI 0.021-0.067) for the LNG-IUS 19.5-mg, and 0.009 (95% CI 0.006-0.014) for the LNG-IUS 52-mg. With the 52-mg LNG-IUS as referent, the relative risk (RR) for ectopic pregnancy was higher during the first year for LNG 13.5-mg (RR 20.59, 95% CI 12.04-35.21), and for both 13.5-mg (RR 14.49, 95% CI 9.01-23.3) and 19.5-mg (RR 4.44, 95% CI 1.64-12.00) during the total study period. The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy during the use of LNG-IUS at any doses was low. The results show that the lower the dose of the IUD, the higher the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. Higher-dose LNG-IUS should be considered when providing contraceptive counseling to a woman with known risk factors for ectopic pregnancy who are considering a hormonal IUD.
To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.