ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022
Comparison of Outcomes Following General Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia During Emergency Cervical Cerclage in Singleton Pregnant Women in the Second Trimester at a Single Center.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for preterm birth and prolonged pregnancy following cervical cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency: a retrospective analysis and predictive model.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Evaluation on the significance of miR-199a-5p for preterm premature rupture of membranes with chorioamnionitis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- The role of cervical microbiome in cervical incompetence: insights from 16 S rRNA metagenomic sequencing.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Anaesthesia for cervical cerclage.BJA education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little information exists regarding the best anesthesia method for emergency cerclage. This single-center study aimed to compare the outcomes following general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia during emergency cervical cerclage in women in the second trimester of a singleton pregnancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 297 pregnant patients were recruited: 141 patients were assigned to the general anesthesia group and 156 patients were assigned to the spinal anesthesia group. Periprocedural data and obstetric outcomes were recorded and statistically analyzed. RESULTS Average duration of the cerclage procedure was shorter in the general anesthesia group than in the spinal anesthesia group (25.78±9.4 min versus 30.88±10.5 min; P<0.05). No severe maternal complications, such as hematosepsis or maternal death, occurred after the procedure for either group. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein (CRP) increased after emergency cerclage in both groups, but at no time did the 2 groups differ significantly (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference in the incidence of miscarriage or preterm delivery (delivery <34 gestational weeks) or in neonatal outcome between the 2 groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study showed that there were no significant differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes, rates of miscarriage, or preterm delivery between general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia during emergency cervical cerclage in women in the second trimester of a singleton pregnancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.