Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization: risk factors for XXXX and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage.

@entity1 @entity3152 @entity3146 @entity600
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the risk factors for @entity600 and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage in @entity1 who had undergone cervical conization due to @entity3146 before pregnancy. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all @entity1 who gave live singleton births between May 1996 and April 2009, after having cervical conization. Delivery before 37 gestational weeks was considered as @entity600 . 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 @entity1 (27.7%) had @entity3152 . The type of conization, the volume of the specimen, and second trimester cervical length were related to @entity600 (p <=0.001, p=0.019, p <=0.001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only mid-trimester cervical length was statistically significant for @entity600 (p=0.012; odds ratio, 0.194; confidence interval, 0.055 to 0.693). Six out of 65 @entity1 had undergone prophylactic cerclage, and three (50%) of them had preterm births, while 15 (25%) @entity1 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 @entity600 in @entity1 who have a prior history of cervical conization. Prophylactic cerclage may not be helpful in preventing @entity600 , therefore more careful consideration should be paid in deciding cerclage after conization during prenatal counseling.
