Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36246050›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2022

Anesthesia for fetal operative procedures: A systematic review.

Miriam Duci, Rebecca Pulvirenti, Francesco Fascetti Leon, Irma Capolupo, Paola Veronese, Piergiorgio Gamba, Costanza Tognon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Outcome of fetal ovarian cysts following in-utero aspiration vs expectant management: multicenter cohort study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The fetal pain paradox.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Miriam DuciPediatric Surgery Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Rebecca PulvirentiPediatric Surgery Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Francesco Fascetti LeonPediatric Surgery Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Irma CapolupoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Neonatology, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Paola VeroneseMaternal-fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Piergiorgio GambaPediatric Surgery Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Costanza TognonAnesthesiology Pediatric Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

fetal analgesiafetal painfetal surgerymaternal-fetal anesthesiaperinatal outcome

Identifiers

PMID36246050
PMCPMC9554945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.