OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the rate of procedure-related complications after intrauterine treatment of spina bifida by endoscopic surgery and by open fetal surgery.METHODS: Systematic literature searches in PubMed and SCOPUS databases were performed on 20 September 2015 to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies on treatment of human spina bifida by endoscopic or open fetal surgery techniques. Only studies with ≥ 10 cases that were published in or after 2000 were included in the meta-analysis in order to reduce the risk of bias. Primary outcomes (complete dehiscence, focal dehiscence and/or markedly thin hysterotomy scar; preterm delivery < 34 weeks; mean gestational age at delivery) and secondary outcomes (oligohydramnios, prelabor rupture of membranes, placental abruption, chorioamnionitis and perinatal death) were assessed for both techniques. Precision of the estimated proportions was evaluated with 95% CIs. Inconsistency was assessed using the I(2) statistic.RESULTS: The search identified 1080 records that were examined based on title and abstract, of which 28 full-text articles were examined completely for eligibility. Nine records were excluded because cases were also described in other studies, leaving 19 records for analysis. When comparing endoscopic vs open fetal surgery, the rate of complete dehiscence, focal dehiscence and/or markedly thin hysterotomy scar was, respectively, 1% (95% CI, 0-4%) vs 26% (95% CI, 12-42%); preterm delivery < 34 weeks was 80% (95% CI, 41-100%) vs 45% (95% CI, 38-53%); oligohydramnios was 39% (95% CI, 9-75%) vs 14% (95% CI, 7-24%); prelabor rupture of membranes was 67% (95% CI, 12-100%) vs 38% (95% CI, 26-50%); and perinatal death was 14% (95% CI, 1-38%) vs 5% (95% CI, 3-8%).CONCLUSION: Open fetal surgery for spina bifida seems to show lower rates of procedure-related complications than does endoscopic surgery, but the rate of hysterotomy scar complications is high after open surgery. Because of the low quality of evidence, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution.@en

Introduction: In clinical practice, fetal heart rate monitoring is performed intermittently using Doppler ultrasound, typically for 30 minutes. In case of a non-reassuring heart rate pattern, monitoring is usually prolonged. Noninvasive fetal electrocardiography may be more suitable for prolonged monitoring due to improved patient comfort and signal quality. This study evaluates the performance and patient experience of four noninvasive electrocardiography devices to assess candidate devices for prolonged noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring. Material and methods: Non-critically sick women with a singleton pregnancy from 24 weeks of gestation were eligible for inclusion. Fetal heart rate monitoring was performed during standard care with a Doppler ultrasound device (Philips Avalon-FM30) alone or with this Doppler ultrasound device simultaneously with one of four noninvasive electrocardiography devices (Nemo Fetal Monitoring System, Philips Avalon-Beltless, Demcon Dipha-16 and Dräger Infinity-M300). Performance was evaluated by: success rate, positive percent agreement, bias, 95% limits of agreement, regression line, root mean square error and visual agreement using FIGO guidelines. Patient experience was captured using a self-made questionnaire. Results: A total of 10 women were included per device. For fetal heart rate, Nemo performed best (success rate: 99.4%, positive percent agreement: 94.2%, root mean square error 5.1 BPM, bias: 0.5 BPM, 95% limits of agreement: −9.7 – 10.7 BPM, regression line: y = −0.1x + 11.1) and the cardiotocography tracings obtained simultaneously by Nemo and Avalon-FM30 received the same FIGO classification. Comparable results were found with the Avalon-Beltless from 36 weeks of gestation, whereas the Dipha-16 and Infinity-M300 performed significantly worse. The Avalon-Beltless, Nemo and Infinity-M300 closely matched the performance of the Avalon-FM30 for maternal heart rate, whereas the performance of the Dipha-16 deviated more. Patient experience scores were higher for the noninvasive electrocardiography devices. Conclusions: Both Nemo and Avalon-Beltless are suitable devices for (prolonged) noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring, taking their intended use into account. But outside its intended use limit of 36 weeks’ gestation, the Avalon-Beltless performs less well, comparable to the Dipha-16 and Infinity-M300, making them currently unsuitable for (prolonged) noninvasive fetal heart rate monitoring. Noninvasive electrocardiography devices appear to be preferred due to greater comfort and mobility.@en