Cervical cerclage and type of suture material: A survey of UK consultants' practice

Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 15, 2014, Pages 1584-1588

  Israfil Bayli, F ^a   Toozs Hobson, P ^a   Lees, C ^b   Slack, M ^c   Daniels, J ^d   Vince, A ^d   Ismail, K M K ^d  

^a BIRMINGHAM CHILDREN S HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical incompetence; Monofilament non braided sutures; Multifilament braided sutures; Preterm birth

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIDED SUTURE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; MCDONALD PROCEDURE; MONOFILAMENT SUTURE; NYLON SUTURE; OBSTETRICIAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; POLYDIOXANONE SUTURE; POLYETHYLENE SUTURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SUTURE; SUTURING METHOD; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CERCLAGE; DEVICES; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CERCLAGE, CERVICAL; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; SUTURES;

EID: 84907053682     PISSN: 14767058     EISSN: 14764954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.870551     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Shennan AH, To MS. Green-top guideline No 60: cervical cerclage. London: RCOG; 2011.
2. Secher NJ, McCormack CD, Weber T, et al. Cervical occlusion in women with cervical insufficiency: protocol for a randomised, controlled trial with cerclage, with and without cervical occlusion. BJOG 2007;114:649-e6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01250.x.
3. McDonald IA. Cervical cerclage. Clin Obstetr Gynaecol 1980;7: 461-79.
4. Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Roberts D, Jorgensen AL. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;4:CD008991.
5. Hume H, Rebarber A, Saltzman DH, et al. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage: Shirodkar vs. McDonald. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:2690-2.
6. Woensdregt K, Norwitz ER, Cackovic M, et al. Effect of 2 stitches versus 1 stitch on the prevention of preterm birth in women with singleton pregnancies undergoing cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:396.e1-e7.
7. Althuisius SM, Dekker GA, Hummel P, et al. Final results of the Cervical Incompetence Prevention Randomized Cerclage Trial (CIPRACT): therapeutic cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:1106-12.
8. Kettle C, Dowswell T, Ismail KM. Absorbable suture materials for primary repair of episiotomy and second degree tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;6:CD000006.
9. Owen J, Hankins G, Iams JD, et al. Multicenter randomized trial of cerclage for preterm birth prevention in high-risk women with shortened midtrimester cervical length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:375.el-e8.
10. MRC/RCOG Working Party on Cervical Cerclage. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage. BJOG 1993;100:516-23.
11. Ezechi OC, Kalu BK, Nwokoro CA. Prophylactic cerclage for the prevention of preterm birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85: 283-4.
12. McDonald IA. Suture of the cervix for inevitable miscarriage. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1957;64:346-50.
13. Shirodkar VN. A new method of operative treatment for habitual abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy. Antiseptic 1955;52: 299.
14. Rust OA, Atlas RO, Reed J, et al. Revisiting the short cervix detected by transvaginal ultrasound in the second trimester: why cerclage therapy may not help. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185: 1098-105.
15. Pereira L, Levy C, Lewis D, et al. Effect of suture material on the outcome of emergent cerclage. Obstet Gynecol 2011;103:35S.
16. Bernard L, Pereira L, Berghella V, et al. Effect of suture material on outcome of cerclage in women with dilated cervix in the 2nd trimester: results from the expectant management compared to physical exam-indicated cerclage (EM-PEC) international cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:103S.
17. Abdelhak YE, Sheen JJ, Kuczynski E, Bianco A. Comparison of delayed absorbable suture v nonabsorbable suture for treatment of incompetent cervix. J Perinat Med 1999;27:250-2.
18. Berghella V, Szychowski JM, Owen J, et al. Suture type and ultrasound-indicated cerclage efficacy. Vaginal Ultrasound Trial Consortium. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:2287-90.
19. Israfil-Bayli F, Toozs-Hobson P, Lees C, et al. Pregnancy outcome after elective cervical cerclage in relation to type of suture material used. Medical Hypotheses 2013;81:119-21.
20. Sheehan KB. E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Computer-Med Commun 2001;6. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x.
21. Bachmann D, Elfrink J, Vazzana G. E-mail and snail mail face off in rematch. Market Res 1999;11:11-15.
22. Slack M, Sandhu JS, Staskin DR, Grant RC. In vivo comparison of suburethral sling materials. International Urogynecol J 2006;17: 106-10.
23. Mehta P, Patel P, Olver JM. Functional results and complications of mersilene mesh for use for frontalis suspension in ptosis surgery. Br J Opthalmol 2004;88:361-4.
24. NICE guideline: Urinary Incontinence CG171. Available from: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG171 [last accessed Oct 2013].
25. Alfirevic Z, Walkinshaw SA, Kilby MD. Green-top guideline No 8: amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. London: RCOG; 2010.
26. Poon L, Savvas M, Zamblera D, et al. Large loop excision of transformation zone and cervical length in the prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. BJOG 2012;119:692-8.