ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Complications of cerclage placement in the periviable period.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to identify rates of intraoperative complications and delivery < 7 days in patients undergoing cerclage placement in the periviable period. Study design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclages placed in the previable (< 22 weeks) or periviable (22-24 weeks) period from 2014 to 2022 at a single institution. The primary outcome was the rate of delivery within 7 days. Secondary outcomes were composite rates of intra- and postoperative complications. Categorical variables were compared with chi-square analysis and continuous variables were analyzed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: A total of 321 patients underwent cerclage during the study period, with 29% (94/321) occurring in the periviable period. No difference was observed in rates of delivery < 7 days between pre- and periviable cohorts ( Conclusion: Intra- and postoperative complications of ultrasound- and examination-indicated cerclages are infrequent regardless of gestational age at placement. There is a low risk of delivery within 7 days of periviable cerclage suggesting that interventions in anticipation of periviable delivery such as antenatal corticosteroid administration may not be necessary. Key Points: There is overlap between the evolving limits of viability and the recommended gestational age for cerclage placement. This has led to providers limiting this service and considering ancillary procedures like neonatology consultation and antenatal corticosteroid administration. Our goal was to understand the risks and outcomes of periviable cerclage.Our study indicates that complications due to periviable cerclage are infrequent and less likely to occur than in previable patients undergoing ultrasound or physical examination-indicated cerclage. Delivery within 7 days was unlikely for both groups.These data provide reassurance regarding the safety of periviable cerclage and evidence that antenatal corticosteroids and neonatology consultation may not be necessary.
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.