A worldwide survey of laser surgery for twin–twin transfusion syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences between international fetal centers in their treatment of twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) by fetoscopic placental laser coagulation. METHODS: Fetal therapy centers worldwide were sent a web-based questionnaire. Participants were identified through networks and through scientific presentations and papers. Questions included physician and center demographics, treatment criteria, operative technique and instrumentation. Laser treatment was compared between low-volume (< 20 procedures/year) and high-volume (≥ 20 procedures/year) centers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 106 fetal therapy specialists approached, 76 (72%) from 64 centers in 25 countries responded. Of these, 48% (31/64) of centers and 63% (48/76) of operators performed fewer than 20 laser procedures annually. Comparison of low- and high-volume centers showed differences in technique, gestational age limits for treatment and geography. High-volume centers more often used the Solomon technique and applied wider gestational age limits for treatment. Europe and Asia had more high-volume centers, whereas South America, the Middle East and Australia had mainly low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed significant differences between fetal centers in several aspects of fetoscopic placental laser therapy for TTTS. Increasing awareness of TTTS, and of laser coagulation as its preferred treatment, will lead to an increase in centers offering this modality, especially in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East. Considering the rarity of TTTS and the relative complexity of the procedure, developing international guidelines for techniques, instrumentation and suggested minimum volumes per center may aid in optimizing perinatal outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".