Learning curves of open and endoscopic fetal spina bifida closure: systematic review and meta‐analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS) trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of open fetal surgery for spina bifida aperta (SBA). Recently developed alternative techniques may reduce maternal risks without compromising the fetal neuroprotective effects. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the learning curve (LC) of different fetal SBA closure techniques. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases and the gray literature were searched to identify relevant articles on fetal surgery for SBA, without language restriction, published between January 1980 and October 2018. Identified studies were reviewed systematically and those reporting all consecutive procedures and with postnatal follow-up ≥ 12 months were selected. Studies were included only if they reported outcome variables necessary to measure the LC, as defined by fetal safety and efficacy. Two authors independently retrieved data, assessed the quality of the studies and categorized observations into blocks of 30 patients. For meta-analysis, data were pooled using a random-effects model when heterogeneous. To measure the LC, we used two complementary methods. In the group-splitting method, competency was defined when the procedure provided results comparable to those in the MOMS trial for 12 outcome variables representing the immediate surgical outcome, short-term neonatal neuroprotection and long-term neuroprotection at ≥ 12 months of age. Then, when raw patient data were available, we performed cumulative sum analysis based on a composite binary outcome defining successful surgery. The composite outcome combined four clinically relevant variables for safety (absence of extreme preterm delivery < 30 weeks, absence of fetal death ≤ 7 days after surgery) and efficacy (reversal of hindbrain herniation and absence of any neonatal treatment of dehiscence or cerebrospinal fluid leakage at the closure site). RESULTS: Of 6024 search results, 17 (0.3%) studies were included, all of which had low, moderate or unclear risk of bias. Fetal SBA closure was performed using standard hysterotomy (11 studies), mini-hysterotomy (one study) or fetoscopy by either exteriorized-uterus single-layer closure (one study), percutaneous single-layer closure (three studies) or percutaneous two-layer closure (one study). Only outcomes for standard hysterotomy could be meta-analyzed. Overall, outcomes improved significantly with experience. Competency was reached after 35 consecutive cases for standard hysterotomy and was predicted to be achieved after ≥ 57 cases for mini-hysterotomy and ≥ 56 for percutaneous two-layer fetoscopy. For percutaneous and exteriorized-uterus single-layer fetoscopy, competency was not reached in the 81 and 28 cases available for analysis, respectively, and LC prediction analysis could not be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The number of cases operated is correlated with the outcome of fetal SBA closure, and the number of operated cases required to reach competency ranges from 35 for standard hysterotomy to ≥ 56-57 for minimally invasive modifications. Our observations provide important information for institutions looking to establish a new fetal center, develop a new fetal surgery technique or train their team, and inform referring clinicians, potential patients and third parties. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,039 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».