Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41643072›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026

Fetoscopic laser ablation vs standard management for Type-II and Type-III vasa previa.

S Backley, R H Chmait, E P Bergh, N Agarwal, A Llanes, G Hamadeh, E Hernandez-Andrade, A Johnson, J Espinoza, A Salazar and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fetoscopic laser ablation for vasa previa: caution in interpreting early experience.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Article
  2. Reply.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Article
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

12 authors.

S BackleyUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0963-1584
R H ChmaitDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
E P BerghUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6276-854X
N AgarwalUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
A LlanesDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
G HamadehDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
E Hernandez-AndradeUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8656-3984
A JohnsonUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
J EspinozaUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9830-2212
A SalazarUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
S ZhuUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
R PapannaUTHealth Houston Fetal Institute, Division of Fetal Intervention, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3801-346X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe standard management (SM) for vasa previa (VP) includes antepartum inpatient admission at 28-32 weeks' gestation followed by Cesarean delivery at 34-37 weeks. Case reports and case series have reported on fetoscopic laser ablation (FLA) as an alternative management approach for Types-II and -III VP. This study compared maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with Type-II or -III VP who underwent third-trimester FLA with those who underwent SM.

methodsThis was a cohort study of all antenatally diagnosed cases of Type-II or -III VP identified by ultrasound at, or referred to, two large referral centers in the USA between September 2016 and December 2023. Patients undergoing elective FLA were prospectively followed in both centers, while patients in the SM cohort were selected retrospectively from a single center. The primary outcome was gestational age at delivery. Comparative analysis was performed between SM and FLA cohorts.

resultsThere were 67 singleton pregnancies complicated by Type-II or -III VP, of which 35 (52.2%) underwent FLA. There were no differences in baseline demographics between the two cohorts. The median gestational age at delivery was 36.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 35.0-37.6) weeks in the FLA cohort and 34.4 (IQR, 33.4-35.0) weeks in the SM cohort (P < 0.001). The rate of vaginal delivery in the FLA cohort was 62.9%. Individuals who underwent FLA had a shorter maternal antepartum stay than did those with SM (median, 1 (IQR, 0-3) days vs 16 (IQR, 7-23) days; P < 0.001). The probability of preterm delivery was higher with SM than with FLA (hazard ratio, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.14-0.44)). The need for neonatal blood transfusion was lower in the FLA cohort than in the SM cohort (0% vs 18.8%; P = 0.009).

conclusionsThird-trimester FLA offers an alternative to SM for pregnancies complicated by Type-II or -III VP, as it is associated with delivery at a later gestational age and facilitates the option of vaginal delivery. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy of FLA and to provide adequate power to evaluate the potential benefits for both maternal and neonatal outcomes. © 2026 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

FetoscopyLaser TherapyVasa PreviaAdultCohort StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy Trimester, ThirdRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUltrasonography, Prenatalfetal interventionfetoscopylaser ablationplacentaultrasoundvasa previa

Identifiers

PMID41643072
PMCPMC12951256

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.