Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2006; 23(1): 003-014
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-923437
REVIEW ARTICLE

Copyright © 2006 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

From Concept to Practice: The Recent History of Preterm Delivery Prevention. Part I: Cervical Competence

Alex C. Vidaeff1 , Susan M. Ramin1
  • 1Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, Texas
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 December 2005 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The prevention of preterm delivery (PTD) is a major desiderate in contemporary obstetrics and a societal necessity. The means to achieve this goal remain elusive, and the research efforts have been punctuated by several ineffective intervention proposals. More recently, new areas of proposed preventive strategy have arisen, focusing on cervical competence, subclinical infection, and hormonal effects. This review, based on a comprehensive and unbiased review of the available literature, will address the rationale and current status of these new concepts of significant clinical interest. We will describe the microcosm of thought and research dedicated to the prevention of PTD during the last 10 years, and the arduous efforts to establish a linkage between predictive observations and therapeutic hypotheses. In its first part, the review will discuss the recently emerging view that regardless of the preterm labor etiology, a common pathway is eventually reached, reflected in cervical changes. The new concept of functional cervical insufficiency is addressed from the perspective of cervical assessment by ultrasound. Although the existing research has not accurately quantified yet the usefulness of ultrasound cervical examination, the technique has become commonplace. Several recent studies have demonstrated a continuum of risk between shorter cervix on ultrasound and higher rate of PTD, leading to the hypothetical argument that women with short cervix on ultrasound might benefit from cervical cerclage. Observational and randomized clinical trials of cerclage as a modality of pregnancy prolongation have provided conflicting results. The relative paucity of data and the conflicting nature of the available evidence dictate caution whenever decisions for cervical monitoring or intervention are made.

KEYWORDS

Preterm delivery - prediction - prevention - cervical insufficiency - cervical length - cerclage

REFERENCES

  • 1 Martin J A, Hamilton B E, Sutton P D et al.. Births: final data for 2002.  Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003;  52 1-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Romero R, Mazor M, Munoz H et al.. The preterm labor syndrome.  Ann NY Acad Sci. 1994;  734 414-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rust O A, Atlas R O, Reed J et al.. Revisiting the short cervix detected by transvaginal ultrasound in the second trimester: why cerclage therapy may not help.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 1098-1105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Novy M J. Cervical cerclage [letter].  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  187 1426-1427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mann E C, McLaren W D, Hoyt O B. The physiology and clinical significance of the uterine isthmus.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961;  81 209-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Herman G E. Note on Emmet's operation as a preventive of abortion.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1902;  2 256-257
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yost N P, Bloom S L, Twickler D M. Pitfalls in the ultrasonic cervical length measurement for predicting preterm birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  93 510-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jackson G M, Ludmir J, Bader T J. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length.  Obstet Gynecol. 1992;  79 214-218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eppel W, Schurz B, Frigo P et al.. Vaginal ultrasound in the puerperium: cervix and lower uterine segment on the first post partum day and uterus six weeks post partum.  Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1992;  196 217-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zalar Jr R W. Early cervical length, preterm prelabor and gestational age at delivery. Is there a relationship?.  J Reprod Med. 1998;  43 1027-1033
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Guzman E R, Mellon C, Vintzileos A M et al.. Longitudinal assessment of endocervical canal length between 15 and 24 weeks' gestation in women at risk for pregnancy loss, or preterm birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  92 31-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Okitsu O, Mimura T, Nakayama T et al.. Early prediction of preterm delivery by transvaginal ultrasonography.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1992;  2 402-409
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ayers J, DeGrood P, Compton A et al.. Sonographic evaluation of cervical length in pregnancy: diagnosis and management of preterm cervical effacement in patients at risk for premature delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 1988;  71 939-944
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kushnir O, Vigil D A, Izquierdo L et al.. Vaginal ultrasonographic assessment of cervical length changes during normal pregnancy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;  162 991-993
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Iams J D, Goldenberg R L, Meis P J et al.. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  334 567-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Imseis H M, Albert T A, Iams J D. Identifying twin gestation at low risk for preterm birth with a transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement at 24 to 26 weeks' gestation.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;  177 1149-1155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 To M S, Skentou C, Cicero S et al.. Cervical length in triplets: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  16 515-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Iams J D, Goldenberg R L, Mercer B M et al.. The preterm prediction study: recurrence risk of spontaneous preterm birth.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  178 1035-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Goldenberg R L, Iams J D, Mercer B M et al.. The preterm prediction study: the value of new vs. standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births.  Am J Public Health. 1998;  88 233-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heath V CF, Southall T R, Souka A P et al.. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  12 312-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Goldenberg R L, Iams J D, Das A et al.. The preterm prediction study: sequential cervical length and fetal fibronectin testing for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  182 636-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Althuisius S M, Dekker G A, van Geijn H P et al.. Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): study design and preliminary results.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  183 823-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .Assessment of Risk Factors for Preterm Birth. Practice bulletin 31. Washington, DC; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Owen J, Yost N, Berghella V et al.. Mid-trimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous birth.  JAMA. 2001;  286 1340-1348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Watson W J, Stevens D, Welter S et al.. Observations on the sonographic measurement of cervical length and the risk of preterm birth.  J Matern Fetal Med. 1999;  8 17-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Iams J D, Newman R B, Thom E A et al.. Frequency of uterine contractions and the risk of spontaneous preterm birth.  N Engl J Med. 2002;  346 250-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Berghella V, Tolosa I E, Kuhlman K et al.. Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;  177 723-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Sonographic measurement of uterine cervix at 18-22 weeks gestation and the risk of preterm delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  92 902-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Yang J H, Kuhlman K, Daly S et al.. Prediction of preterm birth by second trimester cervical sonography in twin pregnancies.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  15 288-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Leitich H, Brunbauer M, Kaider A et al.. Cervical length and dilatation of the internal cervical os detected by vaginal ultrasonography as markers for preterm delivery: a systematic review.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  181 1465-1472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Guzman E R, Vintzileos A M, McLean D A et al.. The natural history of a positive response to transfundal pressure in women at risk for cervical incompetence.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;  176 634-638
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yost N P, Owen J, Berghella V et al.. Second-trimester cervical sonography: features other than cervical length to predict spontaneous preterm birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  103 457-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Naim A, Haberman S, Burgess T et al.. Changes in cervical length and the risk of preterm labor.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  186 887-889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Zilianti M, Azuaga A, Calderon F et al.. Monitoring the effacement of the uterine cervix by transperineal sonography: a new perspective.  J Ultrasound Med. 1995;  14 719-724
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Goldenberg R L, Iams J D, Miodovnik M et al.. The preterm prediction study: risk factors in twin gestations.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  175 1047-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Guzman E R, Walters C, O'Reilly-Groon C et al.. Use of cervical ultrasonography in prediction of spontaneous preterm birth in twin gestations.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  183 1108-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Vayssière C, Favre R, Audibert F et al.. Cervical length and funneling at 22 and 27 weeks to predict spontaneous birth before 32 weeks in twin pregnancies: a French prospective multicenter study.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  187 1596-1604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Poggi S H, Ghidini A, Landy H J et al.. Role of transvaginal sonographic cervical length in predicting spontaneous preterm delivery in triplet pregnancies with therapeutic cerclage.  J Reprod Med. 2003;  48 785-788
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Dor J, Shalev J, Mashiach S, Blankstein J, Serr D M. Elective cervical suture of twin pregnancies diagnosed ultrasonically in the first trimester following induced ovulation.  Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1982;  13 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lazar P, Gueguen S, Dreyfus J et al.. Multicenter and controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at moderate risk of preterm delivery.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984;  91 731-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Rush R W, Isaacs S, McPherson K et al.. A randomized controlled trial of cervical cerclage in women at high risk for preterm delivery.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984;  91 724-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 MacNaughton M C, Chalmers I G, Dubowitz V et al.. Final report of the Medical Research Council/Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology multicentre randomised trial of cervical cerclage.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;  100 516-523
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Harger J H, Archer D F, Marchese S G et al.. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subsequent pregnancies.  Obstet Gynecol. 1983;  62 574-581
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Burger M, Weber-Rossler T, Willmann M. Measurement of the pregnant cervix by transvaginal sonography: an interobserver study and new standards to improve the interobserver variability.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;  9 188-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Guzman E R, Forster J K, Vintzileos A M et al.. Pregnancy outcomes in women treated with elective versus ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  12 323-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kurup M, Goldkrand J. Cervical incompetence: elective, emergent, or urgent cerclage.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  181 240-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Heath V CF, Souka A P, Erasmus I et al.. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: the value of Shirodkar suture for the short cervix.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  12 318-322
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Berghella V, Daly S F, Tolosa J E et al.. Prediction of preterm delivery with transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix in patients with high-risk pregnancies: does cerclage prevent prematurity?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  181 809-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hibbard J U, Snow J, Moawad A H. Short cervical length by ultrasound and cerclage.  J Perinatol. 2000;  20 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Novy M J, Gupta A, Wothe D D et al.. Cervical cerclage in the second trimester of pregnancy: a historical cohort study.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  184 1447-1456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hassan S S, Romero R, Maymon E et al.. Does cerclage prevent preterm delivery in patients with a short cervix?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  184 1325-1331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Newman R B, Krombach R S, Myers M C et al.. Effect of cerclage on obstetrical outcome in twin gestations with a shortened cervical length.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  186 634-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Rust O A, Atlas R O, Jones K J et al.. A randomized trial of cerclage versus no cerclage among patients with ultrasonographically detected second-trimester preterm dilatation of the internal os.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  183 830-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Althuisius S M, Dekker G A, Hummel P et al.. Final results of the cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial (CIPRACT): therapeutic cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 1106-1112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 To M S, Alfirevic Z, Heath V CF et al.. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2004;  363 1849-1853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Groom K M, Shennan A H, Bennett P R. Ultrasound-indicated cervical cerclage: outcome depends on preoperative cervical length and presence of visible membranes at time of cerclage.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  187 445-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Guzman E R, Shen-Schwartz S, Benito C et al.. The relationship between placental histology and cervical ultrasonography in women at risk for pregnancy loss and spontaneous preterm birth.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;  181 793-797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Bachmann L M, Coomarasamy H, Honest H et al.. Elective cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm birth: a systematic review.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;  82 398-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Drakeley A J, Roberts D, Alfirevic Z. Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery: meta-analysis of randomized trials.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  102 621-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Belej-Rak T, Okun N, Windrim R et al.. Effectiveness of cervical cerclage for a sonographically shortened cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  189 1679-1687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Althuisius S M, Dekker G A, Hummel P et al.. Cervical incompetence prevention randomized cerclage trial: emergency cerclage with bed rest versus bed rest alone.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  189 907-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Van den Hof M, Crane J. Ultrasound cervical assessment in predicting preterm birth.  J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2001;  23 418-421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Iams J D. Prediction and early detection of preterm birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  101 402-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .Cervical Insufficiency. Practice bulletin 48. Washington, DC; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Guzman E, Houlihan C, Vintzileos A et al.. The significance of transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix in women treated with emergency cerclage.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  175 471-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Dijkstra K, Funai E, O'Neill L et al.. Change in cervical length after cerclage as a predictor of preterm delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  96 346-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Alex C VidaeffM.D. 

Associate Professor, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas-Houston Medical School

6431 Fannin, Suite 3.604, Houston, TX 77030

      >