ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2025
The Intrauterine Treatment of Open Spinal Dysraphism.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving Practices in Prenatal Open Spinal Dysraphism: A Global Survey of Selection Criteria, Surgical Techniques, and Diagnostic Trends.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Blood Pressure Optimization During Fetoscopic Repair of Open Spinal Dysraphism: Insights from Advanced Hemodynamic Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in the prevention and prenatal treatment of spina bifida.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpen spinal dysraphism is a congenital malformation that causes major morbidity. Its consequences include sensory and motor impairment as well as bladder- and bowel dysfunction. It is often also associated with prenatal ventriculomegaly, which, in turn, necessitates postnatal treatment with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt in approximately 80% of cases. Prenatal therapy with coverage of neural tube defect can reduce the shunt rate and preserve motor function. In this review, we describe the different surgical procedures and their outcomes.
methodsThis review is based on publications that were retrieved by a selective literature search in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases, employing pertinent keywords. Studies of all types (except case reports) that were published in English or German in the period 2010-2024 were included.
resultsThe randomized, controlled MOMS trial showed that intrauterine surgery for defect closure resulted in less progressive neural tissue damage than postnatal surgery and reduced the need for shunting by approximately half (40% vs. 82%). Since the publication of these results, various prenatal surgical procedures have been established, including hysterotomy-assisted, percutaneous fetoscopic, and laparotomy-assisted fetoscopic closure. The individual surgical methods yield comparable results in terms of motor function and shunt rate. A problem with these procedures is that they increase the likelihood of preterm birth, to an extent that varies from one type of procedure to another.
conclusionPrenatal surgery improves motor function and reduces the shunt rate but long-term outcomes beyond adolescence are still lacking. Transparent and interdisciplinary counseling is essential in prenatal communication to inform parents not only about the potential benefits of this treatment, but also about its limitations and risks.
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.