ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Laparoscopic cervical cerclage and pregnancy outcomes in consecutive pregnancies: An observational study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Women's motivations for and experiences with transabdominal cerclage: A qualitative study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Cervical Cerclage Band Erosion into the Rectal Lumen Complicated by Recto-Uterine Fistula: A Case Report.International journal of women's health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic cervical cerclage is an intervention for the prevention of preterm birth, for example, in women with a weak cervix due to prior cervical surgery or prior failed vaginal cerclage. Little is known about pregnancy outcomes when a cerclage is left in situ across consecutive pregnancies; this study aims to investigate neonatal outcomes following laparoscopic cervical cerclage placement in first and subsequent pregnancies and to compare pre- and postconception placement of the laparoscopic cervical cerclage on neonatal survival. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe performed an observational study in women who had a laparoscopic cervical cerclage at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, between 2011 and 2021. Data on the timing of the procedure (pre- vs post-conception), surgical complications, obstetric, and neonatal outcomes were collected from electronic patient records and analyzed descriptively. The primary outcome was neonatal survival. Secondary outcomes were neonatal survival without major morbidity, preterm birth, and gestational age at birth.
resultsA total of 170 women had a laparoscopic cervical cerclage during the study period. Uterine wall perforation occurred in 10/170 procedures (6%), postoperative infection in 4/170 (2%), and 125/170 (74%) were discharged on the same day as the procedure. There were 145 women with at least one subsequent pregnancy and 229 registered pregnancies in total. In the 185 pregnancies that progressed beyond 20 weeks, 166/181 (92%) delivered ≥34 weeks of gestation. Neonatal survival was 183/186 (98%), and survival without major morbidity was 181/186 (97%). Neonatal outcomes were similar between women with a cerclage placed pre- or postconception. Fifty of 145 women (34%) with a cerclage left in situ had more than one pregnancy beyond 20 weeks of gestation. These repeated pregnancies showed consistently favorable outcomes, with neonatal survival rates of 100% in second pregnancies (44/44) and 100% in third pregnancies (4/4).
conclusionsLaparoscopic cervical cerclage supports favorable neonatal outcomes in first and subsequent pregnancies. Neonatal outcomes did not appear to differ based on whether the cerclage was placed pre- or postconception. Pregnancies in which the cerclage was left in situ demonstrated high neonatal survival rates and favorable obstetric outcomes in both second and third pregnancies.
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.