Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Development of a Scoring System for Predicting the Risk of Preterm Birth in Women Receiving Cervical Cerclage

Journal of Perinatology volume 23, pages 664–667 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model for identifying women receiving cervical cerclage at risk for spontaneous preterm birth <32 weeks.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of high-risk patients based on past obstetric history. Our inclusion criteria involved all patients with singleton gestation who received cerclage between 10 and 24 weeks. They were evaluated for the risk factors associated with preterm birth <32 weeks. Risk factors evaluated include: indication for cerclage, gestational age at cerclage placement, cervical length prior to cerclage, timing of cerclage (emergency or elective) and route of cerclage (abdominal or vaginal). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the risk factors associated with preterm birth. A risk-scoring model was developed for the prediction of preterm birth <32 weeks in women receiving cerclage.

RESULTS: We identified 256 women receiving cerclage that met our inclusion criteria. Preterm births <32 weeks occurred in 51 (20%). Multivariable analysis revealed a cervical length <25 mm, a history of cone biopsy and emergency cerclage to be significant risk factors associated with preterm birth <32 weeks. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the best model for predicting spontaneous preterm birth <32 weeks in women with cerclage are 80%; 96%; 82% and 95%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The presence of a short cervical length, a history of cone biopsy and emergency cerclage were associated with preterm birth <32 weeks. Our model had a high sensitivity for identifying women who may benefit from a closer surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dor J, Shalev J, Mashiach S, Blankstein J, Serr DM . Elective cervical suture of twin pregnancies diagnosed ultrasonically in the first trimester following induced ovulation. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1982;13:55–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Forster Von F, During R, Schwarzlos G . Treatment of cervical incompetence — cerclage or pessary? Zbl Gynacol 1986;108:230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  3. MRC/RCOG Working party on cervical cerclage. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Multicentre Randomized trial of cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:516–523.

  4. Rush RW, Isaacs S, McPherson K, Jones L, Chalmers I, Grant A . A randomized controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984;91:724–730.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lazar P, Gueguen S, Dreyfus J, Renaud R, Pontonnière G, Papiernik E . Multicentred controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at moderate risk of preterm delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984;91:731–735.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Berghella V, Daly SF, Tolosa JE, 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;18:809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Heath VCF, Souka AP, Erasmus I, et al. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: the value of Shirodkar suture of the short cervix. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:318.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hassan SS, Romero R, Maymon E, et al. Does cervical cerclage prevent preterm delivery in patients with a short cervix? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1325–1331.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rust OA, Atlas RO, Reed J, van Gaalen J, Balducci J . 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Althuisius SM, Dekker GA, Pieter H, Bekedam DJ, van Geijin HP . 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Odibo AO, Elkousy M, Ural SH, Macones GA . Cervical cerclage compared with expectant management for the prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003;58:130–136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Treadwell MC, Bronsteen RA, Bottoms SF . Prognostic factors and complication rates for cervical cerclage: a review of 482 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:555–558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Charles D, Edwards WR . Infectious complications of cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;141:1065–1071.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Aarnoudse JG, Huisjes HJ . Complications of cerclage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1979;58:255–257.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Harger JH . Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures. Obstet Gynecol 1980;56:544–548.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cardwell MS . Cervical cerclage: a ten year review in a large hospital. South Med J 1988;81:15–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Harger JH . Cerclage and cervical insufficiency: an evidenced based analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1313–1327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Odibo AO, Talucci M, Berghella V . Prediction of preterm premature rupture of membranes by transvaginal ultrasound features and risk factors in a high-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;20:245–251.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al. for NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. The length of the cervix and the risk of preterm delivery. N Engl J Med 1996;334:567–572.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kokia E, Dor J, Blankenstein J, et al. A simple scoring system for the treatment of cervical incompetence diagnosed during the second trimester. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1991;31:12–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell I . Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277:488–494.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center (A.O.O., G.A.M), Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Anthony O Odibo MD & George A Macones MD, MSCE

  2. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (C.F., V.B), Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Catherine Farrell BSN & Vincenzo Berghella MD

Authors
  1. Anthony O Odibo MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Farrell BSN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George A Macones MD, MSCE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincenzo Berghella MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Odibo, A., Farrell, C., Macones, G. et al. Development of a Scoring System for Predicting the Risk of Preterm Birth in Women Receiving Cervical Cerclage. J Perinatol 23, 664–667 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211004

Search

Advanced search

Quick links