ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Fetoscopic Myelomeningocele (MMC) Repair: Evolution of the Technique and a Call for Standardization.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI in Sheep Model for Myelomeningocele Repair Using a Novel Polymer and Other Dural Patches.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Fetoscopic repair of myeloschisis: optimizing the three-layer closure.Neurosurgical focus: Video · 2026Article
- Minilaparotomy-assisted approach for fetoscopic myelomeningocele closure.Neurosurgical focus: Video · 2026Article
- Hybrid approach to closure in fetoscopic myelomeningocele repair.Neurosurgical focus: Video · 2026Article
- Advances in Fetal Repair of Spina Bifida Integrating Prenatal Surgery, Stem Cells, and Biomaterials.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fetal surgery has made significant strides over the past 40 years, facilitated by advances in technology and imaging modalities enabling the diagnosis and treatment of congenital anomalies in utero. The Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS), a multicenter randomized controlled trial, established open fetal myelomeningocele (MMC) repair as the gold standard for improving neurological outcomes compared to postnatal repair. However, this approach is associated with increased maternal complications and preterm birth due to hysterotomy, prompting the exploration of minimally invasive alternatives. Due to the lack of an existing randomized control trial with fetoscopic MMC repair and variations in technique (percutaneous versus laparotomy/transuterine access, different trocar configurations, closure methods, and patch applications) among different fetal centers, more studies are needed to optimize this approach as an alternative to the standard of care. This paper proposes to assess the basics tenets of open fetal MMC repair and to establish guiding principles for a fetoscopic approach that could prove to be equivalent or superior to open fetal MMC repair in maternal and fetal outcomes and lead to clinical implementation.
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.