ArticleThe Journal of urology2020
A Comparative Analysis of Bladder Pattern of Patients who Underwent In Utero Versus Postnatal Myelomeningocele Repair.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Sociodemographic Disparities in Maternal-Fetal Surgery Study Participation.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2022Pooled it
- EAU-ESPU-ERN eUROGEN-ERN ITHACA-ERN ERKNet-IFSBH Guidelines on Spinal Dysraphism in Children and Adolescents: Summary of the Guideline.European urology open science · 2026Article
- The Importance of Early Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction.Research and reports in urology · 2021Review
- Urological Outcome after Fetal Spina Bifida Repair: Data from the Zurich Cohort.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2020Article
- In utero myelomeningocele repair and high-risk bladder pattern. a prospective study.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Advances in the prevention and prenatal treatment of spina bifida.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn utero myelomeningocele closure is a valid alternative to postnatal repair with unclear benefits to bladder function. We compared bladder status in patients who underwent fetal myelomeningocele surgery versus postnatal repair. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed our database, with group 1 consisting of in utero surgery and group 2 consisting of postnatal repair. Group 3 was a subgroup of group 2, including patients initially presenting at age less than 12 months. We recorded medical history, radiological investigation with renal ultrasonography, voiding cystourethrography, urodynamic evaluation and clinical outcome of the bladder pattern after treatment.
resultsWe identified 88 patients in group 1, 86 in group 2 and 38 in group 3. The incidence of urinary tract infection was higher in the postnatal period (45% vs 20%). Hydronephrosis occurred in 20.7%, 22.6% and 28.9% of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Vesicoureteral reflux was diagnosed in 15% in all groups. Urodynamic data showed a higher prevalence of detrusor overactivity in group 1 and no difference in other urodynamic parameters. The high risk bladder pattern at initial evaluation occurred in 56%, 50% and 46% of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. There was a trend to decrease the percentages of the high risk bladder pattern and to increase the normal pattern after treatment in all groups.
conclusionsIn utero repair did not improve urological parameters compared to repair in the postnatal period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.