Comparison of laparoscopic abdominal cerclage and transvaginal cerclage for the treatment of cervical insufficiency: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To compare the pregnancy outcome of patients with cervical insufficiency (CI) underwent prophylactic laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage (LAC) and transvaginal cervical cerclage (TVC). METHODS: A retrospective trial was carried out in the Department of Gynecology, Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital, Shandong Province, China. A total of 217 women with cervical insufficiency underwent the prophylactic cerclage, and the surgical approach was decided by the patients or depended on doctors' advice. The primary outcome measure was the fetal outcome. Secondary outcome measures were delivery of an infant at ≥ 34th gestational weeks, newborn birth weight, neonatal intensive care center (NICU) occupancy, and postoperative complications. Nonparametric variables were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney (U) test, and categorical type outcomes were analyzed with the Chi-square test or the Fisher's exact test. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant. Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Version 19. RESULTS: As of follow-up date, 154 eligible patients were included in this study, with 74 (48.1%) women in the LAC group and 80 (51.9%) in the TVC group. The total fetal survival rate in the two groups was 90.3% (139/154), of which the rate significantly higher in the LAC group compared to the TVC group (97.3% vs. 83.8%, P < 0.01). The delivery of an infant at ≥ 34th gestational weeks was significantly higher in the LAC group compared to the TVC group (94.6% vs. 71.3%, P < 0.01). Compared to the TVC group, the mean newborn birth weight was higher, and the NICU occupancy rate was less in the LAC group (3293.4 ± 542.8 g vs. 2953.6 ± 704.4 g, P = 0.002; 2.8% vs. 17.9%, P = 0.003). COMPLICATIONS: No fatal surgical complications occurred in both groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with cervical insufficiency, the history-indicated conception of prophylactic LAC appears to have a better pregnancy outcome than TVC.

Percutaneous renal artery stent implantation in the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis.

We aimed to investigate the clinical curative effect of percutaneous renal artery stent implantation (PTRAS) in the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS), and to analyze the factors influencing the curative effect of PTRAS. A total of 230 patients with unilateral or bilateral renal artery stenosis were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether adverse cardiogenic or nephrogenic events occurred, 230 patients were divided into two groups to analyze the risk factors of adverse cardiogenic or nephrogenic events. The blood pressure of patients at each time-point after operation was decreased significantly compared with that before operation (P<0.01). The levels of serum creatinine (SCr) at 24 h and 36 months after PTRAS were slightly increased compared with that before operation (P>0.05). The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at each time-point after operation was slightly decreased compared with that before operation, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Renography showed that GFR on the side of stent implantation at 36 months after PTRAS had no significant change compared with that before operation (P>0.05), but GFR on the unaffected side without receiving PTRAS was significantly increased compared with that before operation (P=0.0014). During the 36-month follow-up, there were a total of 56 cases of adverse cardiogenic or nephrogenic events. Multivariate regression analysis results showed that adverse cardiogenic or nephrogenic events after PTRAS were obviously associated with age (≥65 years old), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score (≥2 points), diabetes mellitus, stroke and congestive heart failure (CHF) (P<0.05). In conclusion, PTRAS can effectively control the blood pressure and reduce the types of antihypertensive drugs used by patients with ARAS, but it has no definitely protective effect on renal function. Age (≥65 years old), CCI score (≥2 points), diabetes mellitus, stroke and CHF are risk factors leading to adverse cardiogenic or nephrogenic events after PTRAS.