Intracervical procedures and the risk of subsequent very preterm birth: A case-control study
journal contribution
posted on 2024-01-10, 04:36 authored by LF Watson, Jo-Anne RaynerJo-Anne Rayner, J King, D Jolley, Della ForsterDella ForsterObjective. To investigate the relation of prior intracervical procedures with very preterm birth. Design. A population-based case-control study. Setting. The study was conducted in Australia between 2002 and 2004. Sample. Three hundred and forty-five women having a medically indicated and 236 having a spontaneous singleton birth between 20 and 31 weeks of gestation and 796 women selected randomly from all those giving birth at 37 weeks of gestation. Methods. Interview data were analysed using logistic regression. Main outcome measure. Very preterm birth. Results. Very preterm birth was significantly associated with having any intracervical procedure [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.7], in particular curettage associated with abortion (AOR 1.80; 95% CI 1.2-2.6). Assisted reproductive technology procedures were significantly associated with medically indicated very preterm birth (AOR 3.07; 95% CI 1.8-5.3) and treatments for precancerous cervical changes were significantly associated with spontaneous very preterm birth, as follows: conization/cone biopsy (AOR 3.33; 95% CI 1.8-6.2) and cauterization/ablation (AOR 2.27; 95% CI 1.4-3.8). Suction aspiration for abortion, abnormal Pap smear without treatment and abortion without instrumentation were not associated with very preterm birth. Conclusions. Intracervical procedures are associated with very preterm birth. Notably, curettage rather than any other procedure associated with abortion appears to be implicated in the risk. The introduction of infection during cervical procedures may be the common link with risks found. Changing clinical practice in the management of abortion and human papillomavirus vaccination may lead to lowering the risks of very preterm birth. © 2012 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Funding
This study was supported by research grants from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, SIDS and Kids Victoria, and Telstra Community Development Fund.
History
Publication Date
2012-02-01Journal
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica ScandinavicaVolume
91Issue
2Pagination
7p. (p. 204-210)Publisher
WileyISSN
0001-6349Rights Statement
© The Authors 2012. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/, whereby credit must be given to the creator, only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted and no derivatives or adaptations of the work are permitted.Publisher DOI
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorksRefWorks
BibTeXBibTeX
Ref. managerRef. manager
EndnoteEndnote
DataCiteDataCite
NLMNLM
DCDC