Shirodkar versus McDonald Cerclage for the Prevention of Preterm Birth in Women with Short Cervical Length

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The efficacy of Shirodkar cerclage was compared with that of the McDonald procedure for the prevention of preterm birth (PTB) in women with a short cervix. Secondary analysis using data from all published randomized trials including women with a short cervical length (CL) was performed comparing the use of Shirodkar versus McDonald sutures. Analysis was limited to singletons with short CL on transvaginal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was PTB < 33 weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using bivariate and multivariable techniques. From 607 women randomly assigned in the study, 277 met our inclusion criteria; 127 received Shirodkar and 150 women received McDonald sutures. The mean ( ± standard deviation) gestational age at delivery was 35.0 ± 5.3 versus 36.3 ± 4.7 for the Shirodkar versus McDonald groups, respectively (p < 0.02). PTB < 33 weeks was seen in 61 (22%) of 277 women; 26 (20%) of 127 in the Shirodkar and 35 (23%) of 150 in the McDonald groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5 to 1.6). On adjusting for confounders using logistic regression modeling, no significant difference in PTB < 33 weeks was found between the two groups (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.2 to 1.3). In women with short cervical length randomly assigned to receiving cerclage, no significant difference in prevention of PTB was observed using Shirodkar or McDonald's procedures.

REFERENCES

• 1 Iams J D, Goldenberg R L, Meis P J et al.. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  334 567-572
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Shirodkar V N. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy.  Antiseptic. 1955;  52 299
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 McDonald I A. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage.  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957;  64 712-714
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Rozenberg P, Senat M V, Gillet A, Ville Y. Comparison of two methods of cervical cerclage by ultrasound cervical measurement.  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;  13 314-317
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Perrotin F, Marret H, Ayeva-Derman M, Alonso A M, Lansae J, Body G. Second trimester cerclage of short cervixes: which technique to use? A retrospective study of 25 cases.  J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2002;  31 640-648
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Treadwell M C, Bronsteen R A, Bottoms S F. Prognostic factors and complication rates for cervical cerclage: a review of 482 cases.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;  165 555-558
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Harger J H. Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures.  Obstet Gynecol. 1980;  56 543-548
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Peters III W A, Thiagarajah S, Harbert Jr G M. Cervical cerclage: twenty years' experience.  South Med J. 1979;  72 933-937
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Rust O A, Atlas R O, Reed J et al.. Revisiting the short cervix detected by transvaginal ultrasound in the second trimester: why cerclage therapy may not help.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 1098-1105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Althuisius S M, Dekker G A, Hummel P et al.. Final results of the cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): Therapeutic cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 1106-1112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 To M S, Alfirevic Z, Heath V CF, Cacho A M, Williamson P R, Nicolaides K H. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomized controlled trial.  Lancet. 2004;  363 1849-1853
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Berghella V, Odibo A O, Tolosa J E. Cerclage for prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix found on transvaginal ultrasound examination: a randomized trial.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  191 1311-1317
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Berghella V, Odibo A O, To M S, Rust O A, Althuisius S M. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasound: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials using individual patient-level data.  Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  106 181-189
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Berghella V, Daly S F, Tolosa J E et al.. Prediction of preterm delivery with transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix in patients with high-risk pregnancies: does cerclage prevent prematurity?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  181 809-815
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Drakeley A J, Roberts D, Alfirevic Z. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery: meta-analysis of randomized trials.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  102 621-627
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Odibo A O, Elkousy M, Ural S H, Macones G A. Prevention of preterm birth by cervical cerclage compared with expectant management: A systematic review.  Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2003;  58 130-136
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Belej-Rak T, Okun N, Windrim R, Ross S, Hannah M E. Effectiveness of cervical cerclage for a sonographically shortened cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  189 1679-1687
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Anthony OdiboM.D. 

Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine and Ultrasound, Washington University School of Medicine

660 South Euclid, Campus Box 8064, St. Louis, MO 63110