{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,23]],"date-time":"2026-08-23T16:35:13Z","timestamp":1787502913824,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":11,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2012,4,26]],"date-time":"2012-04-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1335398400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Aust NZ J Obst Gynaeco"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length is useful after suture insertion in predicting preterm delivery. However, there is little evidence to guide practice in the clinical scenario when fetal membranes are seen on ultrasound to be prolapsing distal to a cervical suture.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Aim<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To determine whether a reinforcing cerclage reduced preterm delivery in those women with ultrasound evidence of fetal membranes prolapsing distal to the first suture.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      A retrospective cohort study was conducted on women with a cervical suture\n                      <jats:italic>in situ<\/jats:italic>\n                      plus ultrasound evidence of fetal membranes prolapsing through the first suture. Exposed patients were those managed with a reinforcing cerclage. The unexposed group were women who were managed expectantly, without a reinforcing cerclage.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Those women with a reinforcing cerclage were significantly more likely to deliver at an earlier gestation compared with those managed expectantly: 26\n                      <jats:sup>+0<\/jats:sup>\n                      (\u00b15\n                      <jats:sup>+1<\/jats:sup>\n                      ) compared with 31\n                      <jats:sup>+1<\/jats:sup>\n                      (\u00b17\n                      <jats:sup>+0<\/jats:sup>\n                      ) weeks,\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u00a0=\u00a00.047. More women in the reinforcing cerclage group delivered at &lt;32 completed weeks' gestation: 12\/13 (92%) versus 5\/12 (42%),\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u00a0=\u00a00.01. There was no significant difference in the rate of second\u2010trimester miscarriages between the expectant management group and those with a reinforcing cerclage: 2\/12 (17%) versus 5\/13 (38%),\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u00a0=\u00a00.38.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Our study found that a reinforcing cerclage following primary cerclage failure hastened preterm delivery. The role of transvaginal ultrasound measurement of cervical length postsuture is debatable if the possible intervention is not beneficial and may be detrimental.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828x.2012.01440.x","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2012,4,26]],"date-time":"2012-04-26T04:19:44Z","timestamp":1335413984000},"page":"224-228","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":22,"title":["Reinforcing cerclage in the prevention of preterm birth in women at high risk: a retrospective case\u2013controlled study"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"52","author":[{"given":"Rachael","family":"Simcox","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Maternal and Fetal Research Unit Division of Reproduction and Endocrinology King's College London St. Thomas' Hospital London UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Andrew","family":"Shennan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Maternal and Fetal Research Unit Division of Reproduction and Endocrinology King's College London St. Thomas' Hospital London UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2012,4,26]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_6_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2001.118655"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2001.118163"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD003253"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/16.1.172"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2002.123937"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1469-0705.2002.00788.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(96)70164-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828X.1998.tb02952.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2005.06.076"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2000.108874"},{"key":"e_1_2_6_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0301-2115(03)00289-6"}],"container-title":["Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fj.1479-828X.2012.01440.x","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2012.01440.x","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,11,21]],"date-time":"2023-11-21T02:07:44Z","timestamp":1700532464000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2012.01440.x"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2012,4,26]]},"references-count":11,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2012.01440.x"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1479-828x.2012.01440.x","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0004-8666","1479-828X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0004-8666","type":"print"},{"value":"1479-828X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2012,4,26]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2011-07-18","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2012-03-13","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2012-04-26","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}