摘要目的：评价宫颈机能不全临床诊断是否明确及治疗方式对妊娠结局的影响。方法2004年6月至2010年5月，广东省9家医院宫颈机能不全病例共554例纳入分析。回顾病历资料，按治疗方式分为宫颈环扎手术治疗组（n=357）与保守治疗组（n=197）；同时按照美国妇产科医师学会2014年发布的宫颈机能不全诊断标准重新复核诊断，根据复核结果分为诊断明确组（n=425）及诊断不明确组（n=129）。采用两独立样本t检验及χ2检验比较诊断明确与否及不同治疗方式组间妊娠结局的差异。结果宫颈环扎手术治疗组足月分娩率[40.3%（144/357）与23.4%（46/197），χ2=16.254，P=0.000]明显高于保守治疗组，晚期流产率明显低于保守治疗组[22.4%（80/357）与40.1%（79/197），χ2=19.419，P=0.000]。诊断明确者宫颈环扎手术治疗组的足月分娩率[44.7%（117/262）与20.9%（34/163），χ2=24.844，P=0.000]和新生儿平均出生体重[（2664.3±762.2）与（2416.9±845.0）g，t=1.160，P=0.014]明显高于保守治疗组，晚期流产率明显低于保守治疗组[21.4%（56/262）与41.1%（67/163），χ2=19.021，P=0.000]。诊断不明确者宫颈环扎手术治疗组与保守治疗组足月分娩率[28.4%（27/95）与35.3%（12/34），χ2=0.561]、早产率[46.3%（44/95）与29.4%（10/34），χ2=2.940]、晚期流产率[25.3%（24/95）与35.3%（12/34），χ2=1.252]和新生儿平均出生体重[（2526.5±761.8）与（2683.4±725.8）g，t=0.004]差异均无统计学意义（P值均＞0.05）。双胎妊娠孕妇宫颈环扎手术治疗组与保守治疗组≥28孕周分娩率[81.4%（37/46）与69.2%（18/26），χ2=1.156]、晚期流产率[19.6%（9/46）与30.8%（8/26），χ2=1.156]和新生儿平均出生体重[（2003.2±621.0）与（1807.5±609.4）g，t=0.057]差异均无统计学意义（P值均＞0.05）。结论宫颈机能不全诊断明确且严格掌握宫颈环扎术手术指征情况下，宫颈环扎术可有效改善妊娠结局。双胎妊娠宫颈机能不全不建议行宫颈环扎术。

abstractsObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of diagnosis of cervical insufficiency and different management on pregnancy outcomes.MethodsFrom June 2004 to May 2010, a retrospective analysis was carried out on 554 patients with cervical insufficiency in nine hospitals in Guangdong Province, China. The patients were divided into two groups, the cervical cerclage surgical treatment group (surgical group,n=357) and the expectant treatment group (n=197). These patients were then re-diagnosed according to the unified diagnostic criteria by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2014), and divided into the definite diagnosis group (n=425) and the indefinite diagnosis group (n=129). The two independent samplest-test andChi-square test were used to compare pregnancy outcomes between the definite and indefinite diagnosis groups, and the different treatment groups.ResultsThe full-term delivery rate in the surgical group was significantly higher than that in the expectant treatment group [40.3% (144/357) vs 23.4% (46/197),χ2=16.254, P=0.000], and the late abortion rate was lower in the surgical group than in the expectant treatment group [22.4%(80/357) vs 40.1% (79/197),χ2=19.419,P=0.000]. In women with a definite diagnosis of cervical insufficiency, full-term delivery rate [44.7% (117/262) vs 20.9% (34/163),χ2=24.844,P=0.000], and newborn body weight were significantly higher in the surgical group [(2 664.3±762.2) vs (2 416.9±845.0) g,t=1.160,P=0.014] than in the expectant treatment group and the late abortion rate was significantly lower [21.4% (56/262) vs 41.1% (67/163),χ2=19.021,P=0.000]. Cervical cerclage in the indefinite diagnosis group did not resulted in raising the full-term delivery rate [28.4% (27/95) vs 35.3% (12/34),χ2=0.561], preterm delivery rate [46.3%(44/95) vs 29.4% (10/34),χ2=2.940], late abortion rate [25.3% (24/95) vs 35.3% (12/34),χ2=1.252] and newborn body weight [(2 526.5±761.8) vs (2 683.4±725.8) g,t=0.004] compared with expectant treatment group (allP>0.05). Pregnancy outcomes in the surgical treatment group in relation to twin pregnancies were not significantly different in the≥28 weeks delivery rate [81.4% (37/46) vs 69.2% (18/26),χ2=1.156], late abortion rate [19.6% (9/46) vs 30.8% (8/26),χ2=1.156] and newborn birth weight [(2 003.2±621.0) vs (1 807.5±609.4) g, t=0.057] compared with those in the expectant treatment group (allP>0.05).ConclusionsIn accordance with the diagnostic criteria for cervical insufficiency and indications for cervical cerclage in surgical cases, cervical cerclage can effectively improve pregnancy outcome. But cervical cerclage is not recommended in twin pregnancies with cervical insufficiency.