A PHP Error was encountered

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

Protruding vs. visible prolapsed fetal membranes adversely affects the outcome of cervical insufficiency. | LitMetric

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_34172DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

emergency cerclage
28
protruding pfm
24
cervical insufficiency
12
visible pfm
12
weeks gestation
12
pfm
11
prolapsed fetal
8
fetal membranes
8
perinatal outcomes
8
emergency
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!