Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 1, 2005

Cervical incompetence: the use of selective and emergency cerclage

  • Ratko Matijevic , Branka Olujic , Jasua Tumbri and Asim Kurjak


Objective: This prospective case series was performed in order to assess pregnancy outcome of women with tentative diagnosis of cervical incompetence undergoing selective and emergency cervical cerclage.

Methods: Women recruited in this case series were divided into two groups. The selective group (n = 13) was chosen among pregnant women with a history suggestive of cervical incompetence, but no clinical evidence of threatened miscarriage. The definition of cervical incompetence was dilatation of internal cervical os with shortening of the cervix less than 25 mm and “funnelling” of 25% and more, found on the ultrasound examination of the cervix. The emergency group (n = 12) had clinical symptoms of threatened miscarriage. After exclusion of infection and in the absence of uterine activity they were counseled and offered cerclage.

Results: After cervical cerclage all women were treated in the same way as per our clinical protocol and monitored until delivery. The median gestational age at delivery was 36 weeks (19–39) in the selective group and 33 weeks (22–38) in the emergency group. This difference is not statistically significant. There was 1 miscarriage (8%), 5 pre-term deliveries (38%) and 7 term deliveries (54%) in the selective group; and 4 miscarriages (33%), 3 pre-term deliveries (25%) and 5 term deliveries (42%) in the emergency group. Total neonatal survival was 19/20 (95%) if pregnancy exceeded 24 weeks, making perinatal mortality 5%. There was no differences between selective and emergency groups (1 of 12 in selective vs. 0 of 8 in emergency).

Conclusion: Overall, it can be concluded that both selective and emergency cerclage may have some benefits in patients with cervical incompetence. However, in the absence of a randomized-controlled study, these beneficial effects described cannot be considered as proved.

Published Online: 2005-06-01
Published in Print: 2001-01-26

Copyright © 2001 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG

Downloaded on 25.9.2023 from
Scroll to top button