Open Fetal Surgical Outcomes for Myelomeningocele Closure Stratified by Maternal Body Mass Index in a Large Single-Center Cohort

Prenatal Spina Bifida Repair: Defendable Trespassing of MOMS Criteria Results in Commendable Personalized Medicine

INTRODUCTION

We hypothesize that after publication of the quintessence of the MOMS trial, eligibility criteria for prenatal spina bifida (SB) repair may be modified if a tenable argumentation underlies this decision.

METHODS

Our first 154 fetal surgery patients were analyzed with particular focus on how many, which, and why the original eligibility criteria, set forth by the MOMS Trial Protocol, were disobeyed, and what the eventually detectable, negative and positive impacts of these deviations on outcomes were.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients (2 missing consent) were included (100%). In 69 patients (45.4%), a total of 89 eligibility criteria were disobeyed. In 54 (35.6%) cases, the following maternal criteria were concerned: gestational age at operation of >25+6 weeks in 17 (11.2%), uterine pathologies in 13 (8.6%) women, preoperative BMI ≥35 kg/m2 in 12 (7.9%), previous hysterotomy in 7 (4.6%), previous prematurity in 3 (2%), HIV/hepatitis B in 2 (1.3%), psychosocial issues in 2 (1.3%), and placenta praevia in 1 (0.7%). In 32 (21.1%) cases, fetal criteria were disobeyed 34 times: Fetal anomaly unrelated to SB in 19 (12.5%), no/minimal evidence of hindbrain herniation in 13 (8.6%), and severe kyphosis in 2 (1.3%). We could not identify cases where non-observation of criteria led to clear-cut maternal and/or fetal disadvantages.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that MOMS trial eligibility criteria for prenatal SB repair should be modified or even abandoned with adequate medical and ethical argumentation, and with written parental informed consent after non-directive, full disclosure counseling. This clear-cut change of paradigm is a necessity as it leads toward personalized medicine, allowing more fetuses to benefit from fetal surgery than would have benefitted with the former, published, MOMS criteria in place.

Anesthesia for fetal operative procedures: A systematic review

Objective

The anesthetic management of fetal operative procedures (FOP) is a highly debated topic. Literature on fetal pain perception and response to external stimuli is rapidly expanding. Nonetheless, there is no consensus on the fetal consciousness nor on the instruments to measure pain levels. As a result, no guidelines or clinical recommendations on anesthesia modality during FOP are available. This systematic literature review aimed to collect the available knowledge on the most common fetal interventions, and summarize the reported outcomes for each anesthetic approach. Additional aim was to provide an overall evaluation of the most commonly used anesthetic agents.

Methods

Two systematic literature searches were performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to December 2021. To best cover the available evidence, one literature search was mostly focused on fetal surgical procedures; while anesthesia during FOP was the main target for the second search. The following fetal procedures were included: fetal transfusion, laser ablation of placental anastomosis, twin-reversed arterial perfusion treatment, fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion, thoraco-amniotic shunt, vesico-amniotic shunt, myelomeningocele repair, resection of sacrococcygeal teratoma, ligation of amniotic bands, balloon valvuloplasty/septoplasty, ex-utero intrapartum treatment, and ovarian cyst resection/aspiration. Yielded articles were screened against the same inclusion criteria. Studies reporting anesthesia details and procedures’ outcomes were considered. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed and findings were reported in a narrative manner.

Results

The literature searches yielded 1,679 articles, with 429 being selected for full-text evaluation. A total of 168 articles were included. Overall, no significant differences were found among procedures performed under maternal anesthesia or maternal-fetal anesthesia. Procedures requiring invasive fetal manipulation resulted to be more effective when performed under maternal anesthesia only. Based on the available data, a wide range of anesthetic agents are currently deployed and no consistency has been found neither between centers nor procedures.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows great variance in the anesthetic management during FOP. Further studies, systematically reporting intraoperative fetal monitoring and fetal hormonal responses to external stimuli, are necessary to identify the best anesthetic approach. Additional investigations on pain pathways and fetal pain perception are advisable.