4.2 Article

Survival Outcomes by Fetal Weight Discordance after Laser Surgery for Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome Complicated by Donor Fetal Growth Restriction

Journal

FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY
Volume 47, Issue 11, Pages 800-809

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000509032

Keywords

Laser; Selective intrauterine growth restriction; Selective reduction; Twin growth discordance; Twin-twin transfusion syndrome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Management options for treatment of twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) with severe donor intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) include fetoscopic laser surgery and umbilical cord occlusion (UCO). We studied perinatal survival outcomes in this select group after laser surgery, stratifying patients by preoperative estimated fetal weight (EFW) discordance. Methods: In this retrospective study of monochorionic diamniotic twin gestations with TTTS and selective donor IUGR who underwent laser surgery (2006-2017), preoperative EFW discordance was calculated ([(larger twin - smaller twin)/(larger twin)] x 100) and cases were divided into discordance strata. Severe EFW discordance was defined as >35%. The primary outcome was 30-day donor twin neonatal survival. Results: The 371 cases were distributed by discordance strata: <= 20% (74 [19.9%]), 21-25% (49 [13.2%]), 26-30% (68 [18.3%]), 31-35% (53 [14.3%]), 36-40% (51 [13.7%]), 41-45% (38 [10.2%]), >45% (38 [10.2%]). Donor 30-day survival declined as the discordance strata increased: 86.5, 85.7, 83.8, 75.5, 64.7, 63.2, and 65.8% (p = 0.0046); 30-day survival was inversely associated with severe discordance (>35%) (64.6 vs. 83.2%, p < 0.0001). Discussion: In TTTS cases complicated by donor IUGR with severe growth discordance, laser surgery was associated with donor survivorship greater than 60% suggesting that, in this setting, laser surgery remains a reasonable alternative treatment to UCO. (c) 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available