Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of transabdominal versus transvaginal cerclage on preterm birth and neonatal outcomes among patients with a history of cervical insufficiency

Messinger, Chelsea J., Hernández-Díaz, Sonia, Hofman, Albert, Sadlak, Natalie, Einarsson, Jon, McElrath, Thomas F.·2026·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background: The 2020 Multicentre Abdominal vs. Vaginal Randomised Intervention of Cerclage (MAVRIC) trial found that transabdominal cerclage placed via open laparotomy reduces the risk of spontaneous preterm birth before 32 weeks relative to transvaginal cerclage in a very high-risk obstetric population. It is not known whether the results of MAVRIC generalize to obstetric populations with fewer risk factors, on average, for recurrent spontaneous preterm birth, or to patients without history of failed transvaginal cerclage (an inclusion criterium in MAVRIC). Objectives: 1) To estimate the effect of transabdominal cerclage versus transvaginal cerclage on early preterm delivery (<34 weeks) among patients with history of cervical insufficiency at a quaternary care center; 2) To estimate the effect within a subgroup of patients without history of failed transvaginal cerclage; 3) To describe associated complications of placement and delivery and neonatal outcomes. Study Design: We identified a cohort of adult singleton pregnancies who received history-indicated cerclage at a quaternary care center in the United States. The cohort consisted of 1) patients with a history of ≥1 spontaneous deliveries (birth or fetal loss) <28 weeks, and 2) patients with a history of failed transvaginal cerclage, defined as ≥1 spontaneous preterm deliveries <34 weeks with cervical cerclage in situ. All eligible patients who received transabdominal cerclage were compared to a sample of eligible patients who received transvaginal cerclage. We performed survival analysis with inverse probability weights to adjust for potential sources of bias. Effects were estimated as risk difference (RD), risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed among patients without a history of failed transvaginal cerclage. The risks of surgical, delivery, and neonatal outcomes were described. Results: 188 patients were included, of whom 87 received transabdominal cerclage (99% laparoscopic) and 101 received transvaginal cerclage. Twenty-six patients (30%) with transabdominal cerclage had no history of failed transvaginal cerclage, the majority of whom had additional clinical reasons why transabdominal cerclage was offered. After adjusting for confounding, the adjusted risk of early preterm delivery was 5.5% in the transabdominal group (95% CI: 2.0%, 9.4%) and 18.7% in the transvaginal group (95% CI: 6.8%, 31.4%), RD = −13.1% (95% CI: −26.6%, −0.5%), RR = 0.30 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.94). Among patients without history of failed transvaginal cerclage (N=104 total, N=26 in transabdominal group), the RD was −12.6% (−21.6%, −4.1%). Risks of placement and delivery complications were comparable across groups but included a few serious uterine complications in the transabdominal cerclage group. Neonatal intensive care unit admission occurred in 35% and 23% of neonates in the transabdominal and transvaginal groups, respectively. Conclusions: Among women with history of ≥1 preterm deliveries <28 weeks or failed transvaginal cerclage <34 weeks, transabdominal cerclage reduced the risk of preterm delivery <34 weeks compared to transvaginal cerclage, consistent with MAVRIC findings. Conclusions about efficacy among patients without history of failed transvaginal cerclage are limited by small sample size. Further research is necessary to understand whether the benefits of transabdominal cerclage in subgroups of patients outweigh risks of abdominal surgery and Cesarean delivery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2025.06.049

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Suhag, 2014, Cervical cerclage, Clin Obstet Gynecol, 57, 557, 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000044 · DOI
  2. 2014, Practice bulletin No. 142: cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency, Obstet Gynecol, 123, 372, 10.1097/01.AOG.0000443276.68274.cc · DOI · Paper page
  3. Lazar, 1984, Multicentred controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at moderate risk of preterm delivery, BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol, 91, 731, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1984.tb04841.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. Rush, 1984, A randomized controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm delivery, BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol, 91, 724, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1984.tb04840.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. Macnaughton, 1993, Final report of the medical research council/royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage, BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol, 100, 516, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15300.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Lesser, 1998, Transabdominal cerclage: a laparoscopic approach, Obstet Gynecol, 91, 855
  7. Clark, 2020, Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage: a highly effective option for refractory cervical insufficiency, Fertil Steril, 113, 717, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.02.007 · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.02.007
  8. 2014, Cerclage for the management of cervical insufficiency. Practice Bulletin No. 142, Obstet Gynecol, 123, 372, 10.1097/01.AOG.0000443276.68274.cc · DOI · Paper page
  9. Temming, 2023, Society for maternal-fetal medicine consult series #65: transabdominal cerclage, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 228, B2, 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.018 · DOI
  10. Davis, 2000, Patients with a prior failed transvaginal cerclage: a comparison of obstetric outcomes with either transabdominal or transvaginal cerclage, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 183, 836, 10.1067/mob.2000.108837 · DOI
  11. Umstad, 2010, Transabdominal cervical cerclage, Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 50, 460, 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01212.x · doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.2010.01212.x
  12. Debbs, 2007, Transabdominal cerclage after comprehensive evaluation of women with previous unsuccessful transvaginal cerclage, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 197, 317.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.06.060 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.06.060
  13. Shennan, 2020, MAVRIC: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of transabdominal vs transvaginal cervical cerclage, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 222, 261.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.040 · DOI
  14. Moawad, 2018, Systematic review of transabdominal cerclage placed via laparoscopy for the prevention of preterm birth, J Minim INvasive Gynecol, 25, 277, 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.07.021 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2017.07.021
  15. White, 2009, Laparoscopic cervico-isthmic cerclage: surgical technique and obstetric outcomes, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 201, 364.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.018 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.018
  16. Burger, 2012, Preconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage: a multicenter cohort study, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 207, 273.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.07.030 · DOI
  17. Hernán, 2016, Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available, Am J Epidemiol, 183, 758, 10.1093/aje/kwv254 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hernán, 2016, Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses, J Clin Epidemiol, 79, 70, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Chiu, 2022, Effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination vs. assisted reproductive technology: emulating a target trial using an observational database of administrative claims, Fertil Steril, 117, 981, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.02.003 · DOI
  20. Hernández-Díaz, 2023, Emulating a target trial of interventions initiated during pregnancy with healthcare databases: the example of COVID-19 vaccination, Epidemiology, 34, 238, 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001562 · DOI
  21. Chiu, 2024, Metformin use in the first trimester of pregnancy and risk for nonlive birth and congenital malformations: emulating a target trial using real-world data, Ann Intern Med, 177, 862, 10.7326/M23-2038 · DOI
  22. Ferguson, 2014, Environmental phthalate exposure and preterm birth, JAMA Pediatr, 168, 61, 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3699 · DOI · Paper page
  23. McElrath, 2012, Longitudinal evaluation of predictive value for preeclampsia of circulating angiogenic factors through pregnancy, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 207, 407.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.010 · DOI
  24. Greenland, 1999, Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research, Epidemiol Camb Mass, 10, 37, 10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Pearl, 1995, Causal diagrams for empirical research, Biometrika, 82, 669, 10.1093/biomet/82.4.669 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Hulshoff, 2023, The effectiveness of transabdominal cerclage placement via laparoscopy or laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM, 5, 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100757 · DOI
  27. Whittle, 2009, Laparoscopic cervico-isthmic cerclage: surgical technique and obstetric outcomes, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 201, 364.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.018 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.018
  28. Boyle, 2012, Effects of gestational age at birth on health outcomes at 3 and 5 years of age: population based cohort study, BMJ, 344, 10.1136/bmj.e896 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Stephens, 2016, Survival, hospitalization, and acute-care costs of very and moderate preterm infants in the first 6 Years of life: a population-based study, J Pediatr, 169, 61, 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.10.028 · DOI
  30. Fanaroff, 2007, Trends in neonatal morbidity and mortality for very low birthweight infants, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 196, 147.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.09.014 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Tita, 2009, Timing of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term and neonatal outcomes, N Engl J Med, 360, 111, 10.1056/NEJMoa0803267 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lindquist, 2017, Association of previous cesarean delivery with surgical complications after a hysterectomy later in life, JAMA Surg, 152, 1148, 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2825 · DOI
  33. Villar, 2007, Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study, BMJ, 335, 1025, 10.1136/bmj.39363.706956.55 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Clark, 2008, Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 199, 36.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.007 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hernán, 2016, Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available, Am J Epidemiol, 183, 758, 10.1093/aje/kwv254 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Shennan, 2020, MAVRIC: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of transabdominal vs transvaginal cervical cerclage, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 222, 261.e1, 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.040 · DOI
  37. Demirel, 2021, Fertility outcomes after preconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage for second-trimester pregnancy losses, European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 257, 59, 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.12.012 · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.12.012

Metadata

Authors
Messinger, C. J., Hernández-Díaz, S., Hofman, A., Sadlak, N., Einarsson, J., & McElrath, T. F.
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-02
Volume
234
Issue
2
Pages
480-506
ISSN
0002-9378
Cited by
4
References
1
Language
en
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (T32AG051108)
  • NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of transabdominal versus transvaginal cerclage on preterm birth and neonatal outcomes among patients with a history of cervical insufficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.06.049
The paper
Messinger, C. J., Hernández-Díaz, S., Hofman, A., Sadlak, N., Einarsson, J., & McElrath, T. F. (2026). Effect of transabdominal versus transvaginal cerclage on preterm birth and neonatal outcomes among patients with a history of cervical insufficiency. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.06.049

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.