Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical Weakness in Women Who Have Uterine Anomalies: Impact on Pregnancy Outcome

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations

Abstract

Aims: To critically evaluate the hypothesis that cervical weakness could be another risk factor in patients with uterine anomalies for the adverse pregnancy outcome related with their presence. Brief description of the reviewed data: The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies (CUA) has been variably reported, as there is no universally agreed classification system. Moreover cervical weakness is a difficult entity to diagnose with certainty. However, despite the heterogeneity in definitions and study populations, there is evidence that women with CUA are at increased risk of spontaneous mid-trimester losses and preterm delivery. Since the latter are inversely related to cervical length and ensuing cervical weakness, there does appear to be a correlation between CUA and cervical weakness. Furthermore, adverse pregnancy outcomes may be obviated with interventions such as cerclage. Clinical implications: Patients who have a history of mid-trimester loss or preterm delivery should be thoroughly evaluated to exclude the presence of CUA based on a well-defined classification. Tests to assess underlying cervical weakness should also be conducted. Open issues for further research: Consensus on CUA classification will yield a framework for the comparison of future studies. Robust, well-designed studies are required to delineate a more definitive association between cervical weakness and CUA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Amesse LS, Pfaff-Amesse T. Congenital anomalies of the reproductive tract. In: Falcone T, Hurd WW, editors. Clinical reproductive medicine and surgery. 1st ed. New York: Mosby; 2007. p. 171–90.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:371–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grigoris F, Grimbizis SG, Sardo ADS, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10(3):199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5(4):233–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, et al. Congenital Mullerian anomalies; diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:523–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berry CW, Brambati B, Eskes TKAB, et al. The Euro-Team Early Pregnancy (ETEM) protocol for recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(6):1516–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rust OA, Atlas RO, Jones KJ, Benham BN, Balducci J. A randomised trial of cerclage versus no cerclage among patients with ultrasonographically detected second trimester preterm dilatation of the internal os. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:830–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Althuisius SM, Dekker GA, van Geijn HP, Bekedam DJ, Hummel P. Cervical Incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): study design and preliminary results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;183:823–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(10):2277–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Salim R, Regan L, Woelfer B, et al. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(1):162–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan Y, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:761–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Guideline 17: the management of recurrent miscarriage. London: RCOG Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Saravelos S, Cocksedge K, Li T. The pattern of pregnancy loss in women with congenital uterine anomalies and recurrent miscarriage. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(3):416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1099–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Acien P. Reproductive performance in women with uterine malformation. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:122–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sorensen SS, Trauelsen AGH. Obstetric implications of minor mullerian anomalies in oligomenorrheic women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:1112–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang Y, Zhao YY, Qiao J. Obstetric outcomes in women with uterine anomalies in China. Chin Med J. 2010;123:418–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shuiqing M, Xuming B, Jinghe L. Pregnancy and its outcome in women with malformed uterus. Chin Med Sci J. 2002;17:242–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcomes in unicornuate uteri: a review. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1886–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fakhhrolmolouk Y, Mostafee L. The role of cervical cerclage in pregnancy outcome in women with uterine anomaly. J Reprod Infert. 2011;12(4):277–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hua M, Odibo AO, Longman RE, Macones GA, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. Congenital uterine anomalies and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;206(6):558–61.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fox NS, Roman AS, Stern EM, Gerber RS, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A. Type of congenital uterine anomaly and adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Mat Fetal Neo Med. 2014;27:949–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Christiansen OB, Nybo-Andersen AM, Bosch E, et al. Evidence-based investigations and treatments of recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(4):821–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):22–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. TRUST trial, NTR 1676. The randomised uterine septum transection trial. www.studies-obsgyn.nl/TRUST.

  27. Owen J, Yost N, Berghella V, et al. Mid-trimester endo-vaginal sonography in women at risk for spontaneous preterm birth. JAMA. 2001;286:1340–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman KA, et al. Cervical Ultrasonography compared to manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:723–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vidaeff AC, Ramin SM. Management strategies for the prevention of preterm birth: part II- update on cervical cerclage. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21:480–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Grimes-Dennis J, Berghella V. Cervical length and prediction of preterm delivery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:191–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. To MS, Skentou C, Liao AW, et al. Cervical length and funnelling at 23 weeks gestation in the prediction of spontaneous early preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;8:200–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Abbott D, To M, Shennan A. Cervical cerclage: a review of current evidence. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52:220–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Berghella V, Odibo AO, To MS, et al. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:181–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shirodkar VN. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortion in the second trimester. Antiseptic. 1955;52:299–300.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynecol Brit Emp. 1957;64:346–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Odibo AO, Berghella V, To MS, et al. Shirodkar versus McDonald cerclage for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervical length. Am J Perinatol. 2007;24:55–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomized trial of cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100:516–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. To MS, Alfirevic Z, Alfirevic VCF, et al. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1849–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Benson RC, Durfee RB. Transabdominal cervico-uterine cerclage during pregnancy for the treatment of cervical incompetence. Obstet Gynecol. 1965;25:145–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zaveri V, Aghajafari F, Amankwah K, et al. Abdominal versus vaginal cerclage after a failed transvaginal cerclage: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:868–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Davis G, Berghella V, Talucci M, et al. Patients with a prior failed transvaginal cerclage: a comparison of obstetric outcomes with either transabdominal or transvaginal cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:836–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Witt MU, Joy SD, Clark J, Herring A, Bowes WA, Thorp JM. Cervicoisthmic cerclage: transabdominal vs transvaginal approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:105–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Burger NB, Brolmann HAM, Einarsson JI, Langebrekke A, Hulme JAF. Effectiveness of abdominal cerclage placed via laparotomy or laparoscopy: systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;13:696–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lotgering FK, Gaugler-Senden IP, Lotgering SF, Wallenburg HC. Outcome after transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:779–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Foster TL, Moore ES, Sumners JE. Operative complications and fetal morbidity encountered in 300 prophylactic transabdominal cervical cerclage procedures by one obstetric surgeon. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31:713–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Burger NB, Einarsson JI, Brolmann HA, Vree FE, Mc Elrath TF. Preconceptual laparoscopic abdominal cerclage: a multicentre cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(4):273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK

    Feroza Dawood MBCHB, MRCOG, MD

  2. Department of Gynaecology, Miscarriage Clinic, Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, L87SS, UK

    Roy Farquharson MD, FRCOG

Authors
  1. Feroza Dawood MBCHB, MRCOG, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roy Farquharson MD, FRCOG
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feroza Dawood MBCHB, MRCOG, MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Grigoris F. Grimbizis

  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Genk Institute for Fertility Technology, Leuven, Belgium

    Rudi Campo

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Basil C. Tarlatzis

  4. Leuven Institute for Fertility & Embryology, Leuven, Belgium

    Stephan Gordts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dawood, F., Farquharson, R. (2015). Cervical Weakness in Women Who Have Uterine Anomalies: Impact on Pregnancy Outcome. In: Grimbizis, G., Campo, R., Tarlatzis, B., Gordts, S. (eds) Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5145-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5146-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation