Gestational Age at Birth Varies by Surgical Technique in Prenatal Open Spina Bifida Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Nikan Zargarzadeh, Enaja Sambatur, May Abiad, Ehsan Rojhani, Ali Javinani, Weston Northam, Ramen H Chmait, Eyal Krispin, Kjersti Aagaard, Alireza Shamshirsaz
{"title":"Gestational Age at Birth Varies by Surgical Technique in Prenatal Open Spina Bifida Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Nikan Zargarzadeh, Enaja Sambatur, May Abiad, Ehsan Rojhani, Ali Javinani, Weston Northam, Ramen H Chmait, Eyal Krispin, Kjersti Aagaard, Alireza Shamshirsaz","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2025.02.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prenatal repair of open spina bifida has become well-established. Several surgical approaches have emerged, each focused on optimizing outcomes while minimizing risks. This study aims to compare the gestational age at delivery following the various surgical techniques.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes data from 37 studies between 2010 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Eligible studies included pregnant patients diagnosed with open spina bifida who underwent the following intrauterine repair techniques: open, mini-hysterotomy, laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic, and percutaneous fetoscopic repair.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>The primary outcome investigated was gestational age (GA) at delivery, while secondary outcomes were preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), vaginal birth, and perinatal mortality. The programming language software R (version 4.0.5) was used to execute the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this meta-analysis, 2,333 prenatal repair of open spina bifida procedures arising from 14 countries were analyzed. Of these, open repair accounted for 65.7%, mini-hysterotomy 14.4%, laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic 5.36%, and percutaneous fetoscopic 14.6%. Subgroup analyses revealed a non-significant mean GA at birth:34<sup>+1</sup> weeks for open repair, 34<sup>+2</sup> weeks for mini-hysterotomy, 35<sup>+3</sup> weeks for laparotomy-assisted, and 32<sup>+3</sup> weeks for percutaneous fetoscopic method (p=0.26). While the GA at birth was not different, there were significant differences (P<0.01) in pooled proportions of PPROM and preterm birth by surgical approach. (Overall rates: 75% and 30% respectively). Vaginal birth rates had significant subgroup differences (P<0.01), with the laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic group more likely to have vaginal deliveries (0.02, 0.04, 0.49, 0.18 for open, mini, laparotomy, and percutaneous, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The advanced secondary Bayesian analysis of data from this meta-analysis suggests that the mean gestational age at birth may differ among the four surgical techniques for prenatal repair of open spina bifida, with a potential advantage for the decrease in preterm births associated with a laparotomy-assisted approach. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further direct comparison studies are needed to confirm these observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.02.014","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Prenatal repair of open spina bifida has become well-established. Several surgical approaches have emerged, each focused on optimizing outcomes while minimizing risks. This study aims to compare the gestational age at delivery following the various surgical techniques.

Data sources: This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes data from 37 studies between 2010 and 2023.

Study eligibility criteria: Eligible studies included pregnant patients diagnosed with open spina bifida who underwent the following intrauterine repair techniques: open, mini-hysterotomy, laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic, and percutaneous fetoscopic repair.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The primary outcome investigated was gestational age (GA) at delivery, while secondary outcomes were preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), vaginal birth, and perinatal mortality. The programming language software R (version 4.0.5) was used to execute the analysis.

Results: In this meta-analysis, 2,333 prenatal repair of open spina bifida procedures arising from 14 countries were analyzed. Of these, open repair accounted for 65.7%, mini-hysterotomy 14.4%, laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic 5.36%, and percutaneous fetoscopic 14.6%. Subgroup analyses revealed a non-significant mean GA at birth:34+1 weeks for open repair, 34+2 weeks for mini-hysterotomy, 35+3 weeks for laparotomy-assisted, and 32+3 weeks for percutaneous fetoscopic method (p=0.26). While the GA at birth was not different, there were significant differences (P<0.01) in pooled proportions of PPROM and preterm birth by surgical approach. (Overall rates: 75% and 30% respectively). Vaginal birth rates had significant subgroup differences (P<0.01), with the laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic group more likely to have vaginal deliveries (0.02, 0.04, 0.49, 0.18 for open, mini, laparotomy, and percutaneous, respectively).

Conclusions: The advanced secondary Bayesian analysis of data from this meta-analysis suggests that the mean gestational age at birth may differ among the four surgical techniques for prenatal repair of open spina bifida, with a potential advantage for the decrease in preterm births associated with a laparotomy-assisted approach. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further direct comparison studies are needed to confirm these observations.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信