Selective Reduction in Monochorionic Pregnancies With Selective Fetal Growth Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Ehsan Rojhani, Claudio V Schenone, Ahmed Hashem Fathallah, Nikan Zargarzadeh, Akihiro Hasegawa, Faezeh Aghajani, Eyal Krispin, Francesco D'Antonio, Hiba Mustafa, Asma Khalil, Ramen H Chmait, Alireza A Shamshirsaz
{"title":"Selective Reduction in Monochorionic Pregnancies With Selective Fetal Growth Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ehsan Rojhani, Claudio V Schenone, Ahmed Hashem Fathallah, Nikan Zargarzadeh, Akihiro Hasegawa, Faezeh Aghajani, Eyal Krispin, Francesco D'Antonio, Hiba Mustafa, Asma Khalil, Ramen H Chmait, Alireza A Shamshirsaz","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2026.09.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the rates of co-twin intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD), co-twin neonatal demise, and gestational age (GA) at delivery in monochorionic (MC) pregnancies complicated by selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) undergoing selective reduction (SR) and stratify the outcomes according to the surgical technique.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through May 2026.</p><p><strong>Study eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies were eligible if they reported MC pregnancies complicated by sFGR undergoing SR with data on co-twin IUFD or neonatal demise and GA at delivery.</p><p><strong>Study appraisal and synthesis methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted per PRISMA guidelines and registered on INPLASY (INPLASY202580001). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and technique differences were evaluated using meta-analytic tests for subgroup differences. Post hoc binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assessed the robustness of dichotomous outcomes without continuity correction. I<sup>2</sup> quantified heterogeneity across studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 studies, including 686 pregnancies, met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for quantitative synthesis. The overall rates of co-twin IUFD and co-twin neonatal death were 15% and 4%, respectively, and the GA at delivery was 35.4 weeks (95% CI, 34.2-36.6). In the primary indirect study-level subgroup analysis, pooled co-twin IUFD was higher in RFA than BCC studies (20% vs 9%; P=0.02). In the GLMM sensitivity analysis, the estimated rates remained higher in RFA than BCC studies (14.8% vs 6.6%), but the subgroup difference was not statistically significant (P=0.06). The only direct within-study comparison included 24 sFGR pregnancies and showed no significant difference in co-twin IUFD (BCC, 0/5; RFA, 3/19; P=1.00). Co-twin neonatal death rates were comparable (BCC, 5% vs RFA, 3%). GA at delivery was lower in cases undergoing BCC compared with RFA (34.5 weeks vs 36.8 weeks, respectively; P=0.039). These unadjusted comparisons may be confounded by differences in study and case characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In MC pregnancies complicated by sFGR undergoing SR, pooled risks of co-twin IUFD and neonatal death were approximately 15% and 4%, respectively. The primary analysis suggested lower co-twin IUFD and earlier delivery in BCC than RFA studies; however, the IUFD difference was not statistically significant in the GLMM sensitivity analysis, and all technique comparisons were indirect, unadjusted, potentially confounded , and the single direct comparison was small and inconclusive. Available evidence does not establish an advantage of BCC or RFA.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","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.2026.09.038","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: To estimate the rates of co-twin intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD), co-twin neonatal demise, and gestational age (GA) at delivery in monochorionic (MC) pregnancies complicated by selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) undergoing selective reduction (SR) and stratify the outcomes according to the surgical technique.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through May 2026.

Study eligibility criteria: Studies were eligible if they reported MC pregnancies complicated by sFGR undergoing SR with data on co-twin IUFD or neonatal demise and GA at delivery.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted per PRISMA guidelines and registered on INPLASY (INPLASY202580001). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and technique differences were evaluated using meta-analytic tests for subgroup differences. Post hoc binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assessed the robustness of dichotomous outcomes without continuity correction. I2 quantified heterogeneity across studies.

Results: A total of 22 studies, including 686 pregnancies, met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for quantitative synthesis. The overall rates of co-twin IUFD and co-twin neonatal death were 15% and 4%, respectively, and the GA at delivery was 35.4 weeks (95% CI, 34.2-36.6). In the primary indirect study-level subgroup analysis, pooled co-twin IUFD was higher in RFA than BCC studies (20% vs 9%; P=0.02). In the GLMM sensitivity analysis, the estimated rates remained higher in RFA than BCC studies (14.8% vs 6.6%), but the subgroup difference was not statistically significant (P=0.06). The only direct within-study comparison included 24 sFGR pregnancies and showed no significant difference in co-twin IUFD (BCC, 0/5; RFA, 3/19; P=1.00). Co-twin neonatal death rates were comparable (BCC, 5% vs RFA, 3%). GA at delivery was lower in cases undergoing BCC compared with RFA (34.5 weeks vs 36.8 weeks, respectively; P=0.039). These unadjusted comparisons may be confounded by differences in study and case characteristics.

Conclusions: In MC pregnancies complicated by sFGR undergoing SR, pooled risks of co-twin IUFD and neonatal death were approximately 15% and 4%, respectively. The primary analysis suggested lower co-twin IUFD and earlier delivery in BCC than RFA studies; however, the IUFD difference was not statistically significant in the GLMM sensitivity analysis, and all technique comparisons were indirect, unadjusted, potentially confounded , and the single direct comparison was small and inconclusive. Available evidence does not establish an advantage of BCC or RFA.

选择性减少单绒毛膜妊娠伴选择性胎儿生长限制:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:评估单绒毛膜(MC)妊娠合并选择性胎儿生长受限(sFGR)行选择性复位(SR)术的双胎宫内死胎(IUFD)、双胎新生儿死胎(cotwin neonatal death)和分娩时胎龄(GA)的发生率,并根据手术技术对结果进行分层。数据来源:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus和Web of Science从成立到2026年5月。研究资格标准:如果报告MC妊娠合并sFGR接受SR,并伴有双胎IUFD或新生儿死亡和分娩时GA的数据,则研究符合条件。研究评价和综合方法:本系统评价和荟萃分析按照PRISMA指南进行,并在INPLASY上注册(INPLASY202580001)。使用随机效应荟萃分析计算汇总估计值,使用亚组差异的荟萃分析检验评估技术差异。事后二项广义线性混合模型(glmm)评估了没有连续性校正的二分类结果的稳健性。I2量化研究间的异质性。结果:共有22项研究,包括686例妊娠,符合纳入标准,符合定量综合。双胎IUFD和双胎新生儿死亡的总发生率分别为15%和4%,分娩时GA为35.4周(95% CI, 34.2-36.6)。在主要的间接研究水平亚组分析中,RFA组合并双胎IUFD高于BCC组(20% vs 9%; P=0.02)。在GLMM敏感性分析中,RFA的估计发生率仍然高于BCC研究(14.8% vs 6.6%),但亚组差异无统计学意义(P=0.06)。唯一的直接研究内比较包括24例sFGR妊娠,双胎IUFD无显著差异(BCC 0/5; RFA 3/19; P=1.00)。双胎新生儿死亡率具有可比性(BCC 5% vs RFA 3%)。与RFA相比,BCC患者分娩时GA较低(分别为34.5周对36.8周;P=0.039)。这些未经调整的比较可能因研究和病例特征的差异而混淆。结论:在合并sFGR的MC妊娠中,接受SR的双胎IUFD和新生儿死亡的总风险分别约为15%和4%。初步分析表明,与RFA研究相比,BCC的双胎IUFD更低,分娩更早;然而,在GLMM敏感性分析中,IUFD差异无统计学意义,所有技术比较都是间接的、未经调整的、可能混淆的,单次直接比较较小且不确定。现有的证据并不能确定BCC或RFA的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书