J Gynecol Oncol.  2010 Dec;21(4):225-229. 10.3802/jgo.2010.21.4.225.

Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization: risk factors for preterm delivery and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage

• Nam KH
• Kwon JY
• Kim YH
• Park YW

• KMID: 2173545
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2010.21.4.225

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study examined the risk factors for preterm birth and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage in patients who had undergone cervical conization due to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia before pregnancy.
METHODS
We reviewed the medical records of all patients who gave live singleton births between May 1996 and April 2009, after having cervical conization. Delivery before 37 gestational weeks was considered as preterm birth. The pregnancy outcomes were analyzed with independent sample t-test, chi-square test, and multiple logistic regression using the SPSS ver. 12.0.
RESULTS
Sixty five cases were found. The mean gestational age at delivery was 37 weeks (SD, 3.5). Eighteen patients (27.7%) had preterm delivery. The type of conization, the volume of the specimen, and second trimester cervical length were related to preterm birth (p< or =0.001, p=0.019, p< or =0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only mid-trimester cervical length was statistically significant for preterm birth (p=0.012; odds ratio, 0.194; confidence interval, 0.055 to 0.693). Six out of 65 patients had undergone prophylactic cerclage, and three (50%) of them had preterm births, while 15 (25%) patients without cerclage had preterm births.
CONCLUSION
The type of conization, the volume of specimen, and second trimester cervical length may be the risk factors for preterm birth in patients who have a prior history of cervical conization. Prophylactic cerclage may not be helpful in preventing preterm birth, therefore more careful consideration should be paid in deciding cerclage after conization during prenatal counseling.

Keyword

Conization; Preterm birth; Cervical cerclage

MeSH Terms

Cerclage, Cervical
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Conization
Counseling
Female
Gestational Age
Humans
Logistic Models
Medical Records
Multivariate Analysis
Odds Ratio
Parturition
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
Pregnancy Trimester, Second
Premature Birth
Risk Factors

Reference

1. Crane JM. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2003. 102:1058–1062.

2. Kainz C, Gitsch G, Heinzl H, Breitenecker G. Incidence of cervical smears indicating dysplasia among Austrian women during the 1980s. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995. 102:541–544.

3. Jolley JA, Wing DA. Pregnancy management after cervical surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008. 20:528–533.

4. Gentry DJ, Baggish MS, Brady K, Walsh PM, Hungler MS. The effects of loop excision of the transformation zone on cervical length: implications for pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000. 182:516–520.

5. Prendiville W. Large loop excision of the transformation zone. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995. 38:622–639.

6. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, Raifu AO, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008. 337:a1284.

7. Kristensen J, Langhoff-Roos J, Kristensen FB. Increased risk of preterm birth in women with cervical conization. Obstet Gynecol. 1993. 81:1005–1008.

8. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006. 367:489–498.

9. Leiman G, Harrison NA, Rubin A. Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980. 136:14–18.

10. Luesley DM, McCrum A, Terry PB, Wade-Evans T, Nicholson HO, Mylotte MJ, et al. Complications of cone biopsy related to the dimensions of the cone and the influence of prior colposcopic assessment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985. 92:158–164.

11. Moinian M, Andersch B. Does cervix conization increase the risk of complications in subsequent pregnancies? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982. 61:101–103.

12. Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Gomez R, Luscher KP. Duration of pregnancy after carbon dioxide laser conization of the cervix: influence of cone height. Obstet Gynecol. 1997. 90:978–982.

13. Jones JM, Sweetnam P, Hibbard BM. The outcome of pregnancy after cone biopsy of the cervix: a case-control study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979. 86:913–916.

14. Joseph KS, Kramer MS, Marcoux S, Ohlsson A, Wen SW, Allen A, et al. Determinants of preterm birth rates in Canada from 1981 through 1983 and from 1992 through 1994. N Engl J Med. 1998. 339:1434–1439.

15. Ricciotti HA, Burke L, Kobelin M, Slomovic B, Ludmir J. Ultrasound evaluation of cervical shortening after loop excision of the transformation zone (LETZ). Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995. 50:175–178.

16. Berghella V. Novel developments on cervical length screening and progesterone for preventing preterm birth. BJOG. 2009. 116:182–187.

17. Berghella V, Talucci M, Desai A. Does transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length before 14 weeks predict preterm delivery in high-risk pregnancies? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003. 21:140–144.

18. Owen J, Yost N, Berghella V, Thom E, Swain M, Dildy GA 3rd, et al. Mid-trimester endovaginal sonography in women at high risk for spontaneous preterm birth. JAMA. 2001. 286:1340–1348.

19. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med. 1996. 334:567–572.

20. Kim YT. Current status of cervical cancer and HPV infection in Korea. J Gynecol Oncol. 2009. 20:1–7.

21. Herbert A, Smith JA. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) and invasive cervical carcinoma: the yawning gap revisited and the treatment of risk. Cytopathology. 1999. 10:161–170.

22. Acharya G, Kjeldberg I, Hansen SM, Sorheim N, Jacobsen BK, Maltau JM. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005. 272:109–112.

23. Jakobsson M, Gissler M, Paavonen J, Tapper AM. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and the risk for preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 114:504–510.

24. Jakobsson M, Gissler M, Sainio S, Paavonen J, Tapper AM. Preterm delivery after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2007. 109:309–313.

25. Klaritsch P, Reich O, Giuliani A, Tamussino K, Haas J, Winter R. Delivery outcome after cold-knife conization of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2006. 103:604–607.

26. Samson SL, Bentley JR, Fahey TJ, McKay DJ, Gill GH. The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005. 105:325–332.

27. Althuisius SM, Schornagel IJ, Dekker GA, van Geijn HP, Hummel P. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure of the cervix and time of delivery in subsequent pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001. 72:31–34.

28. Berghella V, Pereira L, Gariepy A, Simonazzi G. Prior cone biopsy: prediction of preterm birth by cervical ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004. 191:1393–1397.

29. Grimes-Dennis J, Berghella V. Cervical length and prediction of preterm delivery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007. 19:191–195.

30. Masamoto H, Nagai Y, Inamine M, Hirakawa M, Okubo E, Ishisoko A, et al. Outcome of pregnancy after laser conization: implications for infection as a causal link with preterm birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008. 34:838–842.

31. Ferenczy A, Choukroun D, Falcone T, Franco E. The effect of cervical loop electrosurgical excision on subsequent pregnancy outcome: North American experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995. 172:1246–1250.

32. Sadler L, Saftlas A. Cervical surgery and preterm birth. J Perinat Med. 2007. 35:5–9.

33. Himes KP, Simhan HN. Time from cervical conization to pregnancy and preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2007. 109:314–319.

34. Michelin MA, Merino LM, Franco CA, Murta EF. Pregnancy outcome after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 36:17–19.

35. Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol. 1992. 79:214–218.

36. Wright TC, Kurman RJ, Ferenczy A. Kurman RJ, editor. Precancerous lesions of the cervix. Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract. 1994. 4th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag;260.

37. Larsson G, Grundsell H, Gullberg B, Svennerud S. Outcome of pregnancy after conization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982. 61:461–466.

38. Kullander S, Sjoberg NO. Treatment of carcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri by conization: a five-year follow-up. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1971. 50:153–157.

39. Myllynen L, Karjalainen O. Pregnancy outcome after combined amputation and conization of the uterine cervix. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1984. 73:345–349.

40. Zeisler H, Joura EA, Bancher-Todesca D, Hanzal E, Gitsch G. Prophylactic cerclage in pregnancy: effect in women with a history of conization. J Reprod Med. 1997. 42:390–392.

41. Robichaux AG 3rd, Stedman CM, Hamer C. Uterine activity in patients with cervical cerclage. Obstet Gynecol. 1990. 76:1 Suppl. 63S–66S.

42. Charles D, Edwards WR. Infectious complications of cervical cerclage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981. 141:1065–1071.

43. Jewelewicz R. Incompetent cervix: pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment. Semin Perinatol. 1991. 15:156–161.