Advertisement

Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 348–354 | Cite as

Laparoscopic Abdominal Cerclage

  • Nisse V. ClarkEmail author
  • Jon I. Einarsson
Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (S Puntambekar, Section Editor)
  • 117 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This article reviews the current state of the literature as regards to the indications, outcomes, and techniques of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage.

Recent Findings

Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is a safe and effective method for the treatment of refractory cervical insufficiency or anatomic restriction to transvaginal cerclage placement. Laparoscopic cerclage has similar success rates to open abdominal cerclage and is the preferred approach given reduced blood loss, postoperative pain, length of stay, and cost. Laparoscopic placement prior to conception may improve feasibility of the procedure and decrease complications. Various surgical techniques to aid in suture placement have been described.

Summary

Laparoscopic cerclage is a highly successful intervention for the treatment of cervical insufficiency. Continued research is needed to further define the surgical and obstetric benefits of this method.

Keywords

Laparoscopic cerclage Abdominal cerclage Surgical technique Cervical insufficiency 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Nisse V. Clark and Jon I. Einarsson declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Ludmir J. Sonographic detection of cervical incompetence. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1988;31:101–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rust O, Odibo A. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin: Cerclage for the Management of Cervical Insufficiency. Number 142. 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee SE, Romero R, Park CW, Jun JK, Yoon BH. The frequency and significance of intraamniotic inflammation in patients with cervical insufficiency. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:633.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wei SQ, Fraser W, Luo ZC. Inflammatory cytokines and spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic women: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:393–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lash AF, Lash SR. Habitual abortion: the incompetent internal os of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1950;59:68–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shirodkar VN. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. Antiseptic. 1955;52:299–300.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957;64:346–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harger JH. Comparison of success and morbidity in cervical cerclage procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;56:543–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berghella V, Szychowski JM, Owen J, Hankins G, Iams JD, Sheffield JS, et al. Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:2287–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benson RC, Durfee RB. Transabdominal cervicouterine cerclage during pregnancy for the treatment of cervical incompetency. Obstet Gynecol. 1965;25:145–55.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Novy MJ. Transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage: a reappraisal 25 years after its introduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164:1635–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lesser KB, Childers JM, Surwit EA. Transabdominal cerclage: a laparoscopic approach. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:855–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debbs RH, DeLa Vega GA, Pearson S, Sehdev H, Marchiano D, Ludmir J. Transabdominal cerclage after comprehensive evaluation of women with previous unsuccessful transvaginal cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:317.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cammarano CL, Herron MA, Parer JT. Validity of indications for transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage for cervical incompetence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1871–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahran M. Transabdominal cervical cerclage during pregnancy. A modified technique. Obstet Gynecol. 1978;52:502–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sumners JE, Kuper SG, Foster TL. Transabdominal cerclage. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;59:295–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fick AL, Caughey AB, Parer JT. Transabdominal cerclage: can we predict who fails. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007;20:63–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zaveri V, Aghajafari F, Amankwah K, Hannah M. Abdominal versus vaginal cerclage after a failed transvaginal cerclage: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:868–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis G, Berghella V, Talucci M, Wapner RJ. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ades A, Dobromilsky K. Transabdominal cervical cerclage: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:968–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Auber M, Hamou L, Roman H, Resch B, Verspyck E, Marpeau L. Transabdominal cervico-isthmic cerclage: 13 cases at Rouen University Hospital. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012;40:741–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.•
    Burger NB, Brölmann HA, Einarsson JI, Langebrekke A, Huirne JA. Effectiveness of abdominal cerclage placed via laparotomy or laparoscopy; systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:696–704. The authors performed the largest systematic literature review to-date including 31 studies on laparoscopic and abdominal cerclage. They concluded that abdominal cerclage by either approach is associated with high fetal survival rates and minimal complications. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carter JF, Soper DE, Goetzl LM, Van Dorsten JP. Abdominal cerclage for the treatment of recurrent cervical insufficiency: laparoscopy or laparotomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:111.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang X, Ma N, Li TC, Guo Y, Song D, Zhao Y, et al. Simplified laparoscopic cervical cerclage after failire of vaginal suture: technique and results of a consecutive series of 100 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2016;201:146–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whittle WL, Singh SS, Allen L, Glaude L, Thomas J, Windrim R, et al. Laparoscopic cervico-isthmic cerclage: surgical technique and obstetric outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:364.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.•
    Tulandi T, Alghanaim N, Hakeem G, Tan X. Pre and post-conceptional abdominal cerclage by laparoscopy or laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:987–93. This review of 16 studies of abdominal cerclage showed high success rates regardless of the timing or surgical approach. The authors advocated for laparoscopic placement prior to conception given the inherent benefits of laparoscopy and ease of preconceptional placement. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barmat L, Glaser G, Davis G, Craparo F. Da Vinci-assisted abdominal cerclage. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1437.e1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fechner AJ, Alvarez M, Smith DH, Al-Khan A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic cerclage in a pregnant patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:e10–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Foster TL, Addleman RN, Moore ES, Sumners JE. Robotic-assisted prophylactic transbadominal cervical cerclage in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33:821–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Menderes G, Clark LE, Azodi M. Needleless laparoscopic abdominal cerclage placement. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Menderes G, Clark M, Clark-Donat L, Azodi M. Robotic-assisted abdominal cerclage placement during pregnancy and its challenges. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:713–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore ES, Foster TL, McHugh K, Addleman RN, Sumners JE. Robotic-assisted transabdominal cerclage (RoboTAC) in the non-pregnant patient. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32:643–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wolfe L, DePasquale S, Adair CD, Torres C, Stallings S, Briery C, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic placement of transabdominal cerclage during pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 2008;25:653–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zeybek B, Borahay M, Kilic GS. Overcoming the obstacles of visualization in robotically-assisted abdominal cerclage using indocyanine green. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:S153.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mourad J, Burke YZ. Needleless robotic-assisted abdominal cerclage in pregnancy and nonpregnant patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:298–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.•
    Dawood F, Farquharson RG. Transabdominal cerclage: preconceptual versus first trimester insertion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio. 2016;199:27–31. This was a recent cohort study of 161 patients comparing preconceptual versus first trimester open abdominal cerclage. The authors concluded that preconceptional open abdominal cerclage is more effective in preventing mid-trimester loss and preterm labor, and is associated with lower surgical and obstetric morbidity that first trimester open abdominal cerclage. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen Y, Liu H, Gu J, Yao S. Therapeutic effect and safety of laparoscopic cervical cerclage for treatment of cervical insufficiency in first trimester or non-pregnant phase. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:7710–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pearl J, Price R, Richardson W, Fanelli R, Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and use of laparoscopy for surgical problems during pregnancy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:3479–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Al-Fadhli R, Tulandi T. Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2004;31:497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Groom KM, Jones BA, Edmonds DK, Bennett PR. Preconception transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:230–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rust OA, Atlas RO, Jones KJ, Benham BN, Balducci J. 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. 2000;183:830–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shin S, Chung H, Kwon SH, Cha SD, Lee HJ, Kim AR, et al. The feasibility of a modified method of laparoscopic transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage during pregnancy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015;25:651–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Plante M. Evolution in fertility-preserving options for early-stage cervical cancer: radical trachelectomy, simple trachelectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:982–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Agdi M, Tulandi T. Placement and removal of abdominal cerclage by laparoscopy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:308–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Carter JF, Soper DE. Laparoscopic removal of abdominal cerclage. JSLS. 2007;11:375–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Scarantino SE, Reilly JG, Moretti ML, Pillari VT. Laparoscopic removal of a transabdominal cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1086–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Carter JF, Savage A, Soper DE. Laparoscopic removal of abdominal cerclage at 19 weeks’ gestation. JSLS. 2013;17:161–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Martin A, Lathrop E. Controversies in family planning: management of second-trimester losses in the setting of an abdominal cerclage. Contraception. 2013;87:728–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chandiramani M, Chappell L, Radford S, Shennan A. Successful pregnancy following mid-trimester evacuation through a transabdominal cerclage. BMJ Case Rep 2011.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Burger NB, Einarsson JI, Brölmann HA, Florentien EM, Vree MD, McElrath TF, et al. Preconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage: a multicenter cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:273.e1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hawkins E, Nimaroff M. Vaginal erosion of an abdominal cerclage 7 years after laparoscopic placement. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:420–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations