Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: This study aimed to determine how prolapsed fetal membranes (PFM) affect perinatal outcomes in cases of cervical insufficiency undergoing emergency cerclage or expectant management.
Patients And Methods: This retrospective study analyzed perinatal outcomes in 100 pregnant women with cervical insufficiency, including those with visible PFM at the cervical external os and those with protruding PFM to the vagina. The participants were subjected to either expectant management involving prescribed bedrest or emergency cerclage.
Results: In the study population, 41 (41%) preferred bedrest, while 59 (59%) chose emergency cerclage. Among those managed expectantly, 10 (10%) had visible PFM, and 31 (31%) had protruding PFM. Among those who underwent emergency cerclage, 32 (32%) had visible PFM, and 27 (27%) had protruding PFM. Delivery after 32 weeks of gestation showed similar rates between women with visible and protruding PFM, regardless of the management approach chosen. These rates were significantly higher compared to those with protruding PFM managed with bed rest and emergency cerclage. Prolongation of pregnancy in protruding-cerclage and protruding-bedrest groups was 42.3±34 and 17.9±22 days, respectively.
Conclusions: Our findings provide support for considering emergency cerclage as a viable option when addressing cases involving a visible form of PFM, although the recommendation is somewhat less robust in instances of protruding PFM. The implementation of an emergency cerclage procedure has the potential to extend the time frame between diagnosis and delivery, enhance neonatal survival rates, and increase the likelihood of births occurring after 28 weeks of gestation. However, it does not seem to significantly affect the rate of births taking place after 32 weeks of gestation. This could potentially lead to complications associated with premature births and extended stays in the postnatal neonatal intensive care unit. Therefore, it is crucial to offer families detailed information regarding the pros and cons of emergency cerclage.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202310_34172 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!