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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Coathup, V., Boyle, E., Carson, C., Johnson, S., Kurinzcuk, J. J., Macfarlane, A., Petrou, S., Rivero-Arias, O., & Quigley, M. A. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m4075 · Cited by 76
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- Suhag, 2014, Cervical cerclage, Clin Obstet Gynecol, 57, 557, 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000044 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lesser, 1998, Transabdominal cerclage: a laparoscopic approach, Obstet Gynecol, 91, 855
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Ferguson, 2014, Environmental phthalate exposure and preterm birth, JAMA Pediatr, 168, 61, 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.3699 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Greenland, 1999, Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research, Epidemiol Camb Mass, 10, 37, 10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008 · DOI · Paper page
- Pearl, 1995, Causal diagrams for empirical research, Biometrika, 82, 669, 10.1093/biomet/82.4.669 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 366 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- 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.