Objective To study the guiding significance of medical history on laparoscopic and vaginal cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence and its influence on pregnancy outcome. Methods A total of 53 cases by laparoscopic abdominal cervical cerclage (LAC group) before pregnancy and 73 cases by transvaginal cervix cerclage (TVC group) at 12–14 weeks of pregnancy were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on the influencing factors of delivery gestational weeks. Furthermore, the gestational weeks after cervical cerclage were compared between the two groups with high- and low-risk grades. Results The number of previous uterine cavity operations in LAC group was more than that TVC group, and the costs of operation were more than TVC group. At the same time, the hospitalization days and operation time were longer than those in TVC group, and the delivery rate of cesarean section was higher than TVC group, but the total hospitalization times were less than TVC group (P < 0.05). The rate of delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy and the incidence of premature rupture of membranes or premature labor in LAC group were lower than those in TVC group (P < 0.05). In TVC group, the increased number of prior PTB or STL and the history of cervical cerclage failure would increase the risk of premature delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy. There was no increased risk of preterm delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy in LAC group (P > 0.05). According to the risk level, in the high-risk group, the delivery rate of LAC group at gestational weeks < 37 weeks, < 34 weeks and < 28 weeks was lower than that of TVC group. Conclusion Laparoscopic cervical cerclage might be more effective in preventing premature delivery before 34 weeks of gestation, and its influence on delivery gestational weeks was not affected by related medical history. For high-risk patients with the history of prior PTB or STL and failed cerclage, laparoscopic cervical cerclage might be more effective than vaginal cervical cerclage in preventing extremely preterm before 28 weeks, premature delivery before 34 weeks and premature delivery before 37 weeks. Therefore, our limited experience suggested that LAC can be a recommended option for patients with high-risk history.

Objective To study the guiding significance of medical history on laparoscopic and vaginal cervical cerclage in the treatment of cervical incompetence and its influence on pregnancy outcome. Methods A total of 53 cases of cervical cerclage by laparoscopy before pregnancy (laparoscopic group) and 73 cases of preventive cervical cerclage by vagina (vaginal group) at 12–14 weeks of pregnancy were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on the influencing factors of delivery gestational weeks. To further compare the difference of delivery gestational weeks after cervical cerclage between laparoscopic group and vaginal group with high and low risk levels. Results The number of previous uterine cavity operations in laparoscopic group was more than that in vaginal group, the hospitalization days and operation time were longer than those in vaginal group, the delivery rate of cesarean section was higher than that in vaginal group, but the total hospitalization times were less than that in vaginal group(P < 0.05). The rate of delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy and the incidence of premature rupture of membranes or premature labor in laparoscopic group were lower than those in vaginal group(P < 0.05). In the vaginal group, the increased number of prior PTB or STL and the history of cervical cerclage failure will increase the risk of premature delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy. There was no significant difference in the influence of laparoscopic history on delivery before 34 weeks of pregnancy(P > 0.05). According to the risk level, in the high-risk group the delivery rate of laparoscopic group at gestational weeks < 37 weeks, < 34 weeks and < 28 weeks was lower than that of vaginal group. Conclusion Laparoscopic cervical cerclage is more effective in preventing premature delivery before 34 weeks of gestation, and its influence on delivery gestational weeks is not affected by related medical history. For high-risk patients, laparoscopic cervical cerclage is more effective than vaginal cervical cerclage in preventing extremely preterm 28 weeks ago, premature delivery 34 weeks ago and preterm delivery 37 weeks ago. Therefore, laparoscopic cervical cerclage is preferred for patients with high-risk medical history. However, laparoscopic cervical cerclage significantly increases the cesarean section rate, and the advantages and disadvantages of retaining laparoscopic cervical cerclage in situ still need further follow-up and research.