Noninvasive cerclage for the management of cervical incompetence: a prospective study

  • Ganesh Acharya
  • Bettina Eschler
  • Martin Grønberg
  • Martha Hentemann
  • Tom Ottersen
  • Jan Martin Maltau
Original Article


Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a noninvasive cerclage pessary in the management of cervical incompetence. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of all pregnant women treated for cervical incompetence during a 4-year period. Women with known risk factors for preterm delivery had transvaginal ultrasonography every 2–3 weeks after 17–19 weeks of gestation. Those with progressive shortening of cervix diagnosed before 30 weeks were treated with a cerclage pessary when the cervical length was ≤25 mm. The pessary was electively removed at 34–36 weeks. The course and outcome of pregnancy were recorded. Results: Thirty-two women were treated with a cerclage pessary. There were nine twin and two triplet pregnancies. Fifteen (47%) had two or more risk factors for preterm delivery. The mean gestational age at cerclage was 23 (17–29) weeks, cervical length 17 (5–25) mm. Two women required delivery before the onset of labor due to severe intrauterine growth restriction and one due to HELLP syndrome. These were excluded from further analysis. In the remaining 29 women, the interval between cerclage and delivery was 10.4 (2–19) weeks, mean gestational age at delivery 34 (22–42) weeks, and birth weight 2,255 (410–4,045) g. Thirteen (45%) women delivered before 34 weeks. There were a total of 35 live-born infants and four intrapartum fetal deaths (all between 22 and 25 weeks gestation). All women complained of increased vaginal discharge, but no other significant complications were observed that could be attributed to the use of pessary. Conclusion: Cerclage pessary may be useful in the management of cervical incompetence. Whether it can be a noninvasive alternative to surgical cerclage merits further investigation.


Cervical incompetence Cerclage Pessary Preterm birth 


  1. 1.
    Harger JH (2002) Cerclage and cervical insufficiency: an evidence-based analysis. Obstet Gynecol 100:1313–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A et al (1996) The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med 334:567–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heath VC, Southall TR, Souka AP, Elisseou A, Nicolaides KH (1998) Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 12:312–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V (1998) Sonographic measurement of uterine cervix at 18–22 weeks’ gestation and the risk of preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 92:902–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guzman ER, Mellon C, Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Walters C, Gipson K (1998) Longitudinal assessment of endocervical canal length between 15 and 24 weeks gestation in women at risk for pregnancy loss or preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol 92:31–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassan SS, Romero R, Berry SM, Dang K, Blackwell SC, Treadwell MC et al (2000) Patients with an ultrasonographic cervical length ≤15 mm have nearly 50% risk of early spontaneous preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1458–1467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Althuisius SM, Dekker GA, Hummel P, Bekedam DJ, van Geijn HP (2001) Final results of the cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): therapeutic cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1106–1112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    To MS, Palaniappan V, Skentou C, Gibb D, Nicolaides HK (2002) Elective cerclage vs. ultrasound-indicated cerclage in high-risk pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19:475–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groom KM, Bennett PR, Golara M, Thalon A, Shennan AH (2004) Elective cervical cerclage versus serial ultrasound surveillance of cervical length in a population at high risk for preterm delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 112:158–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lazar P, Gueguen S, Dreyfus J, Reynaud R, Pontonnier G, Papiernik E (1984) Multicentred controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at moderate risk of preterm delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 91:724–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rush RW, Isaacs S, McPherson K, Jones L, Chalmers I, Grant A (1984) A randomized controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 91:731–735PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rust OA, Atlas RO, Jones KJ, Benham BN, Balducci J (2000) A randomized trial of cerclage versus no cerclage among patients with ultrasonographically detected second-trimester preterm dilatation of the internal os. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:830–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage (1993) Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Multicentre Randomised trial of cervical cerclage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100:516–23Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassan SS, Romero R, Maymon E, Berry SM, Blackwell SC, Treadwell MC et al (2001) Does cervical cerclage prevent preterm delivery in patients with a short cervix? Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1325–1331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drakeley AJ, Roberts D, Alfirevic Z (2003) Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol 102:621–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owen J, Iams JD, Hauth JC (2003) Vaginal sonography and cervical incompetence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:586–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    To MS, Alfirevic Z, Heath VCF, Cicero S, Cacho AM, Williamson PR, Nicolaides KH (2004) Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomized controlled trial. Lancet 363:1849–1853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berghella V, Odibo AO, Tolosa JE (2004) Cerclage for prevention of preterm birth in women with short cervix found on transvaginal ultrasound examination: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1311–1317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roman AS, Rebarber A, Pereira L, Sfakianaki AK, Mulholland J, Berghella V (2005) The efficacy of sonographically indicated cerclage in multiple gestations. J Ultrasound Med 24:763–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cross RG (1959) Treatment of habitual abortion due to cervical incompetence. Lancet 2:127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oster S, Javert CT (1966) Treatment of the incompetent cervix with Hodge pessary. Obstet Gynecol 28:206–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vitsky M (1968) Pessary treatment of the incompetent cervical os. Obstet Gynecol 31:732–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seyffarth K (1978) Noninvasive cerclage using support pessaries for prevention and therapy of premature birth. Zentralbl Gynäkol 100:1566–1570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quaas L, Hillemanns HG, du Bois A, Schillinger H (1990) The Arabin cerclage pessary-alternative to surgery. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilk 50:429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arabin B, Halbesma JR, Vork F, Hubener M, van Eyck J (2003) Is treatment with vaginal pessaries an option in patients with a sonographically detected short cervix? J Perinat Med 31:122–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Förster VF, During R, Schwarzlos G (1998) Treatment of cervix incompetence—cerclage versus pessary. Zentralbl Gynäkol 108:230–237Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Newcomer J (2000) Pessaries for the treatment of incompetent cervix and premature delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 55:443–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hibbard JU, Tart M, Moawd AH (2000) Cervical length at 16–22 weeks’ gestation and risk for preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 96:972–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guzman ER, Forster JK, Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Walters C, Gipson P (1998) Pregnancy outcomes in women treated with elective versus ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 12:323–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iams JD (2004) Abnormal cervical competence. In: Creasy RK, Resnik R, Iams JD (eds). Maternal-fetal medicine: principles and practice (fifth edition). Saunders, Elsevier Inc., USA, pp 603–622Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berghella V, Odibo AO, To MS, Rust OA, Althuisius SM (2005) Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol 106:181–189PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ganesh Acharya
    • 1
  • Bettina Eschler
    • 1
  • Martin Grønberg
    • 1
  • Martha Hentemann
    • 1
  • Tom Ottersen
    • 1
  • Jan Martin Maltau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospital of Northern NorwayTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations