Observational studyUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025
Transvaginal cervical cerclage: double monofilament modified Wurm vs single braided McDonald technique.
Observational study in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two-stitch versus one-stitch cervical cerclage in women with high risk for preterm birth: a stratified exploratory randomized controlled trial in China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Prediction of preterm birth using 3D volume cesarean scar morphology in pregnant women with previous advanced labor cesarean delivery.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
- Does suture number matter in transvaginal cervical cerclage? A propensity score-weighted cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Observational
- Emergency double McDonald cerclage in twin gestation with single fetal death and simultaneous prolapse of both amniotic sacs.BMJ case reports · 2026Article
- Reframing Cervical Insufficiency as a Dynamic Process in the Preterm Birth Continuum: From Fixed Disease to a Modifiable Condition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Before standardized terminology: a historical and technical perspective on early Korean modified double-level transvaginal cerclage.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare pregnancy outcome in women at high risk of preterm birth undergoing the modified Wurm (two monofilament sutures) vs those undergoing the McDonald (single braided suture) transvaginal cervical cerclage technique.
methodsThis was a single-center prospective observational study of all women with a singleton pregnancy attending a prematurity surveillance clinic because of an increased risk of preterm birth, and undergoing history- or ultrasound-indicated transvaginal cervical cerclage. Two cerclage techniques were evaluated and the choice of cerclage was at the physician's discretion. In the modified Wurm technique using monofilament material, two circumferential sutures are placed with two insertions each (four in total). Outcomes were compared vs those of women undergoing the McDonald technique (single braided suture using a diamond-type insertion method with four insertions in total). Primary outcome was the rate of preterm birth at < 32 weeks' gestation, with planned subanalyses according to cervical cerclage indication (history- or ultrasound-indicated), preterm birth rate at any gestational age (< 37, < 34, < 28 and < 24 weeks), and sonographic cervical length (CL) of ≤ 25 mm and ≤ 15 mm. Secondary outcome measures included maternal and neonatal adverse events and outcomes, including the pre- and postsurgical characteristics. In addition, a reproducibility analysis using Bland-Altman plots was performed to evaluate the intra- and interobserver reproducibility in assessment of CL on ultrasound examination before and after cerclage.
resultsIn total, 147 patients were included in the final analysis: 55 (37%) received modified Wurm cerclage and 92 (63%) received McDonald cerclage. Other than race, demographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Of these, 22 (40%) women in the modified Wurm group had history-indicated cerclage, vs 50 (54%) women in the McDonald group; the remaining cerclages were ultrasound-indicated. In women with a short CL (≤ 25 mm), there was a significantly lower rate of preterm birth at < 32 weeks' gestation after modified Wurm compared with the McDonald technique (3 (9%) vs 14 (29%); adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.25 (95% CI, 0.06-0.95); P = 0.042). However, the study was underpowered to provide definitive conclusions. In the overall population, there was no significant difference in preterm birth rate for < 32 weeks' gestation between the two techniques (7 (13%) vs 22 (24%); aOR, 0.51 (95% CI, 0.20-1.33); P = 0.169). There was no difference in overall surgical complications between the two techniques. The pregnancy loss rate and composite neonatal morbidity/mortality rate were comparable between the two groups (2 (4%) vs 7 (8%); odds ratio (OR), 0.47 (95% CI, 0.09-2.33); P = 0.485; and 5 (9%) vs 11 (13%); OR, 0.68; (95% CI, 0.22-2.09); P = 0.593, respectively).
conclusionsIn high-risk women with a sonographic short CL, placement of a modified Wurm cervical cerclage is associated with a lower rate of preterm birth < 32 weeks compared with McDonald cervical cerclage. Further research in larger cohorts is needed to confirm this finding and to determine if this technique reduces the preterm birth rate after elective cervical cerclage without CL shortening. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.