Robotic Transabdominal Cerclage vs Laparotomy: A Comparison of Obstetric and Surgical Outcomes

Favorable surgical and obstetrical outcomes in pre- and postconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage: a large multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cervical incompetence is an important cause of extremely preterm delivery. Without specialized treatment, cervical incompetence has a 30% chance of recurrence in a subsequent pregnancy. Recently, the first randomized controlled trial showed significant superiority of abdominal cerclage compared with both high and low vaginal cerclage in preventing preterm delivery at <32 weeks of gestation and fetal loss in patients with a previous failed vaginal cerclage.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess surgical and obstetrical outcomes in patients with pre- and postconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage placement. Furthermore, it also aimed to perform subgroup analysis based on the indication for cerclage placement in order to identify patients who benefit the most from an abdominal cerclage.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter cohort study with consecutive inclusion of all eligible patients from 1997 onward in the Dutch cohort (104 patients) and from 2007 onward in the Boston cohort (169 patients) was conducted. Eligible patients had at least 1 second- or third-trimester fetal loss due to cervical incompetence and/or a short or absent cervix after cervical surgery. This includes loop electrosurgical excision procedure, conization, or trachelectomy. Patients were divided into the following subgroups based on the indication for cerclage placement: (1) previous failed vaginal cerclage, (2) previous cervical surgery, and (3) other indications. The third group consisted of patients with a history of multiple second- or early third-trimester fetal losses due to cervical incompetence (without a failed vaginal cerclage) and/or multiple dilation and curettage procedures. The primary outcome measure was delivery at ≥34 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival at hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included surgical and obstetrical outcomes, such as pregnancy rates after preconceptional surgery, obstetrical complications, and fetal survival rates.

RESULTS

A total of 273 patients were included (250 in the preconceptional and 23 in the postconceptional cohort). Surgical outcomes of 273 patients were favorable, with 6 minor complications (2.2%). In the postconceptional cohort, 1 patient (0.4%) had hemorrhage of 650 mL, resulting in conversion to laparotomy. After preconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage (n=250), the pregnancy rate was 74.1% (n=137) with a minimal follow-up of 12 months. Delivery at ³34 weeks of gestation occurred in 90.5% of all ongoing pregnancies. Four patients (3.3%) had a second-trimester fetal loss. The indication for cerclage in all 4 patients was a previous failed vaginal cerclage. The other subgroups showed fetal survival rates of 100% in ongoing pregnancies, with a total fetal survival rate of 96%. After postconceptional placement, 94.1% of all patients with an ongoing pregnancy delivered at ³34 weeks of gestation, with a total fetal survival rate of 100%. Thus, second-trimester fetal losses did not occur in this group.

CONCLUSION

Pre- and postconceptional laparoscopic abdominal cerclage is a safe procedure with favorable obstetrical outcomes in patients with increased risk of cervical incompetence. All subgroups showed high fetal survival rates. Second-trimester fetal loss only occurred in the group of patients with a cerclage placed for the indication of previous failed vaginal cerclage, but was nevertheless rare even in this group.

The minimally invasive approach to abdominal cerclage: indications, complications, and techniques for placement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laparoscopic abdominal cerclage placement has become the favored approach for management of refractory cervical insufficiency. There are special considerations with respect to surgical method, management of pregnancy loss, and delivery following placement. This review addresses current literature on transabdominal cerclage with a focus on up-to-date minimally invasive techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature on abdominal cerclage has compared laparoscopic and open approaches, evaluated the effect of preconception placement on fertility, and explored the upper gestational limit for dilation and evacuation with an abdominal cerclage in situ .

SUMMARY

The objective of this article is to help minimally invasive surgeons identify candidates for transabdominal cerclage placement, understand surgical risks, succeed in their laparoscopic approach, and appropriately manage patients postoperatively.

The effectiveness of transabdominal cerclage placement via laparoscopy or laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Failure or technical impossibility to place a prophylactic transvaginal cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency justifies the need for an abdominal cerclage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we studied the obstetrical and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage approaches performed before (interval) or during pregnancy.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies on laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placement in February 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies on laparoscopic or open laparotomy placement of an abdominal cerclage with at least 2 patients that reported on our primary outcomes were included.

METHODS

All included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias with an adjusted Quality in Prognosis Study tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary outcomes, namely fetal survival and gestational age at delivery.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 83 studies with a total of 3398 patients; 1869 of those underwent laparoscopic cerclage placement and 1529 underwent open laparotomy placements. No studies directly compared the 2 cerclage approaches. The survival (overall, 91.2%) and gestational age at delivery (overall, 36.6 weeks) were not statistically different between the approaches. For the procedure during pregnancy, the laparoscopic group showed significantly less blood loss >400 mL (0% vs 3%), a slightly lower procedure-related fetal loss (0% vs 1%), a shorter hospital stay but a longer operation duration than the open laparotomy group. For the interval cerclages, the laparoscopic group showed significantly fewer wound infections (0% vs 3%) and a shorter hospital stay than the open laparotomy group, but showed comparable offspring preterm birth and survival rates.

CONCLUSION

Based on indirect comparisons, the laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placements at interval or during pregnancy produced similar outcomes in terms of survival and gestational age at delivery. There are some small differences in perioperative care, surgical complications, interventions, and complications during pregnancy. This implies that both methods of abdominal cerclage placement have high success rates and thus we cannot conclude that one of the methods is superior for the placement of an abdominal cerclage.