A retrospective cohort study on the outcome of cervical cerclage in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss

Abeer N. Al Hasani; Maryam S. Al Shabibi; Alyia Y. Al Madhani

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260157

Authors

Abeer N. Al Hasani Department of Obstestrics and Gynecology, OMSB, Oman
Maryam S. Al Shabibi OMSB, Oman
Alyia Y. Al Madhani OMSB, Oman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260157

Keywords:

Recurrent pregnancy loss, Cervical cerclage, Pregnancy outcomes, Retrospective study, Polycystic ovarian syndrome

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate pregnancy outcomes after cervical cerclage in patient with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Objectives were to estimate the incidence of cervical cerclage done among patients with history of RPL attending Royal hospital over the last 10 years (2013-2022). And to assess the effectiveness of cervical cerclage done among patient with RPL.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study was conducted. The study was carried out from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022, at Royal hospital. All booked pregnant women with history of RPL who had cervical cerclage attending antenatal clinic at Royal hospital during the study period were included in the study. A set of prespecified risk factors (internationally well-known risk factors for cervical incompetence) was identified. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of risk factors for cervical incompetence. Both groups were followed up till end of pregnancy.

Results: The overall incidence of cervical cerclage done among patient with RPL was 4.5%. Patient with history of RPL and with nil risk factors for cervical incompetence who had cervical cerclage were 11 patients (10.3%) in compared to other group which were 96 patients (89.7%). History of second trimester miscarriage being the most common risk factor for cervical incompetence (72%), and the least common risk factors were fibroid uterus (2.8%), uterine anomalies (2.8%), PCOS (2.8%) in the study. The rate of live birth after cervical cerclage insertion (elective or rescue) in patients with history of RPL in total was 92.5%. The percentage of neonatal morbidity and mortality was 28.6%. Patients with bulging membranes at the time of cervical cerclage insertion who had live birth were 80% (40% term birth, 40% preterm birth) (p=0.197). Patients with funneling cervix at the time of cervical cerclage insertion who had live birth were 93.8% (68.8% term birth, 25% preterm birth) (p=0.589).

Conclusions: Elective cervical cerclage is recommended in patient with history suggestive of cervical incompetence. As rescue cervical cerclage helped in prolongation of pregnancy till term or late preterm in most of the cases, so cervical assessment is recommended in patients with RPL. Adding progesterone did not show any significant benefit in compared to other group without progesterone, but in view of small sample size further prospective study should be conducted with larger sample size. Screen for genitourinary infections is recommended and to treat accordingly.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Sauhta M. Recurrent pregnancy loss. Womens Health. 2017;4(4):96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/mojwh.2017.04.00093

Dimitriadis E, Menkhorst E, Saito S, Kutteh W, Brosens J. Recurrent pregnancy loss. J Perinat Med. 2007;6(1):98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-020-00228-z

Hill N. Types of miscarriage. London: Tommy’s; 2024. Available at: https://www.tommys.org/baby-loss-support/miscarriage-information-and-support/types-of-miscarriage. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Pillarisetty LS, Gupta N. Recurrent pregnancy loss. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554460/. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Compton DA. Mechanisms of aneuploidy. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2011;23(1):109-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2010.08.007

Bustamante JG, Singhal M, Rout P, Goyal A. Antiphospholipid syndrome. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430980/, Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Thakur M, Mahajan K, Suzanne M. Cervical incompetence. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525954/. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Jakobsson M, Norwitz E. Reproductive effects of cervical excisional and ablative procedures. UpToDate; 2025. Available at: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/reproductive-effects-of-cervical-excisional-and-ablative-procedures. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Ramus R. Cervical insufficiency: practice essentials. Medscape. 2021. Available at: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1979914-overview. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Ressel GW. ACOG releases bulletin on managing cervical insufficiency. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69(2):436-8.

Bieber KB, Olson SM. Cervical cerclage. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2022. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560523/. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Shennan A, Story L. Cervical cerclage. BJOG. 2022;129(1):e1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17003

Behrman RE, Butler AS. Mortality and acute complications in preterm infants. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2010. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11385/. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Zivaljevic J, Jovandric M, Babic S, Raus M. Complications of preterm birth. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(6):1014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60061014

American Pregnancy Association. Premature birth complications. 2017. Available at: https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/premature-birth-complications/. Accessed on 29 November 2025.

Chen Q, Chen G, Li N. Clinical effect of emergency versus elective cervical cerclage. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(2):277-82.

Kumari P, Manish K, Treasa J, Minakshi K, Bijesh Y, Manisha MB. Comparing obstetric and perinatal outcomes following elective and emergency cervical cerclage. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2023;73(2):213-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-023-01845-w

Nam KH. Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization. J Gynecol Oncol. 2010;21(4):225-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2010.21.4.225

Drakeley AJ, Roberts D, Alfirevic Z. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD003253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003253

Story L, Shennan A. Cervical cerclage: a review. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):1-10.

Zolghadri J, Donmez ME, Yilmaz F, Ayaz E. Double versus single cervical cerclage. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39(10):1467-72.

Crihfield EG, Shibata R, Moskowitz O, Ayala GR, Nimaroff ML. Transabdominal cerclage for managing recurrent pregnancy loss. MDedge Ob Gyn. 2022;32(5):36-42.

Kim Y, Chung H, Lee S, Song C, Jang TK, Bae JG, et al. Modified laparoscopic transabdominal cervicoisthmic cerclage. J Clin Med. 2021;10(4):693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040693

Rahman L. Cervical cerclage to prevent recurrent mid-trimester miscarriage. SJAMS. 2024;12(3):232-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36347/sjams.2024.v12i03.002

Andersen LK, Odibo AO. Recurrence rates after abdominal and vaginal cerclage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(5):595-601.

Zarudskaya N, Dap M, Caffin L, Galet EP, Bonnet C, Morel O. Live birth rate after cervicoisthmic cerclage. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2022;51(9):102329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2022.102329

Kolding L, Blondel B, Alexander S, Bjarnadottir RL, Gissler M, Roos JL, et al. Recurrence of second-trimester miscarriage and extreme preterm delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(8):911-9.

Kim SM, Hong S, Chung HS, Choi S, Jo YS. Prediction of outcomes for rescue cerclage in cervical insufficiency: A multicenter retrospective study. Int J Med Sci. 2024;21(5):896-903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.87941