Dataset Information

A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele.

ABSTRACT: Prenatal repair of myelomeningocele, the most common form of spina bifida, may result in better neurologic function than repair deferred until after delivery. We compared outcomes of in utero repair with standard postnatal repair.We randomly assigned eligible women to undergo either prenatal surgery before 26 weeks of gestation or standard postnatal repair. One primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or the need for placement of a cerebrospinal fluid shunt by the age of 12 months. Another primary outcome at 30 months was a composite of mental development and motor function.The trial was stopped for efficacy of prenatal surgery after the recruitment of 183 of a planned 200 patients. This report is based on results in 158 patients whose children were evaluated at 12 months. The first primary outcome occurred in 68% of the infants in the prenatal-surgery group and in 98% of those in the postnatal-surgery group (relative risk, 0.70; 97.7% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.84; P<0.001). Actual rates of shunt placement were 40% in the prenatal-surgery group and 82% in the postnatal-surgery group (relative risk, 0.48; 97.7% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001). Prenatal surgery also resulted in improvement in the composite score for mental development and motor function at 30 months (P=0.007) and in improvement in several secondary outcomes, including hindbrain herniation by 12 months and ambulation by 30 months. However, prenatal surgery was associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery and uterine dehiscence at delivery.Prenatal surgery for myelomeningocele reduced the need for shunting and improved motor outcomes at 30 months but was associated with maternal and fetal risks. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00060606.).

SUBMITTER: Adzick NS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3770179 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele.

Adzick N Scott NS Thom Elizabeth A EA Spong Catherine Y CY Brock John W JW Burrows Pamela K PK Johnson Mark P MP Howell Lori J LJ Farrell Jody A JA Dabrowiak Mary E ME Sutton Leslie N LN Gupta Nalin N Tulipan Noel B NB D'Alton Mary E ME Farmer Diana L DL

The New England journal of medicine 20110209 11

<h4>Background</h4>Prenatal repair of myelomeningocele, the most common form of spina bifida, may result in better neurologic function than repair deferred until after delivery. We compared outcomes of in utero repair with standard postnatal repair.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomly assigned eligible women to undergo either prenatal surgery before 26 weeks of gestation or standard postnatal repair. One primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or the need for placement of a cerebrospin ...[more]

PMID: 21306277

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS), a randomized clinical trial of prenatal vs standard postnatal repair for myelomeningocele, found that prenatal repair reduced hydrocephalus and hindbrain herniation and improved motor function in children aged 12 to 30 months. The Management of Myelomeningocele Study Follow-up (MOMS2) was conducted in children at ages 5 to 10 years. The primary (neurocognitive) outcome has already been reported.ObjectiveTo determine whether MOMS2 participants who had prenatal repair have better physical functioning than those with postnatal repair.Design, setting, and participantsParticipants from MOMS were recruited for participation in the follow-up study, MOMS2, conducted from April 9, 2012, to April 15, 2017. For this secondary analysis of the randomized clinical trial, trained examiners without knowledge of the treatment group evaluated the physical characteristics, self-care skills, neurologic function, and mobility of the children. Physical functioning outcomes were compared between the prenatal and postnatal repair groups. MOMS2 was conducted at the same 3 clinical sites as MOMS. Home visits were conducted for families who were unable to travel to one of the clinical sites. Of the 161 children with myelomeningocele aged 5 to 10 years old enrolled in MOMS2, 154 had a physical examination and were included in the analyses.ExposuresPrenatal repair of myelomeningocele.Main outcomes and measuresPrespecified secondary trial outcomes of self-care skills, functional mobility, walking skills, and motor level.ResultsThis analysis included 78 children with postnatal repair (mean [SD] age, 7.4 [2.1] years; 50 girls [64.1%]; 69 White children [88.5%]) and 76 with prenatal repair (mean [SD] age, 7.5 [1.2] years; 43 boys [56.6%]; 70 White children [92.1%]). Children in the prenatal repair group were more competent with self-care skills (mean [SD] percentage of maximum FRESNO Scale score, 90.8% [9.6%] vs 85.5% [17.6%]) and were commonly community ambulators per the Modified Hoffer Classification (51.3% prenatal vs 23.1% postnatal; adjusted relative risk [aRR] for sex, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.23-2.34). Children with prenatal repair also performed the 10-m walk test 1 second faster (difference in medians, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.3-1.7), had better gait quality (adjusted mean difference for home distances of 5 m, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.14-2.54), and could perform higher-level mobility skills (adjusted mean difference for motor total, 5.70; 95% CI, 1.97-11.18). Children in the prenatal repair group were less likely to have a motor function level worse than their anatomic lesion level (aRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.77).Conclusions and relevanceThis secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial found that the physical functioning benefits of prenatal repair for myelomeningocele reported at age 30 months persisted into school age. These findings indicate the benefit of prenatal repair of myelomeningocele for school-aged children.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00060606.

Project description:Background:The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. Methods/Design:The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1-5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence. Discussion:Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills.In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR. Trial registration:The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair.DesignPragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial.SettingMultidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA.Participants124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019.InterventionsRobotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat.ResultsPatients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair.ConclusionThis study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele.

Publications

A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets