4.6 Article

Risk Factors for Neurodevelopment Impairment in Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome Treated With Fetoscopic Laser Surgery

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 113, 期 2, 页码 361-366

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195873e

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk factors for adverse long-term neurodevelopment outcome in twin-twin transfusion syndrome treated with laser surgery. METHODS: Twin-twin transfusion syndrome cases treated with laser surgery at three European centers from August 2000 to December 2005 were included in this case-control study. Neurological, mental, and psychomotor development (using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd edition) was evaluated at 2 years of age. RESULTS: A total of 212 twin-twin transfusion syndrome pregnancies were treated with laser surgery during the study period. Overall mortality rate was 30% (129 of 424). Seventeen children (6%) were lost to follow-up. Longterm outcome was assessed in 278 infants. The incidence of neurodevelopment impairment was 18% (50 of 278). Four risk factors were found to be significantly associated with increased risk for neurodevelopment impairment: greater gestational age at laser surgery (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.69; P=.05), higher Quintero stage (OR 3.55 for each increment in stage, 95% CI 1.07-11.82, P=.04), lower gestational age at birth (OR 1.39 for each week, 95% CI 1.06-1.81; P=.01), and lower birth weight (OR 1.18 for each 100-g decrease, 95% CI 1.05-1.32; P <.01). In a multivariable analysis, lower gestational age at birth was the only factor independently associated with neurodevelopmental impairment (OR 1.33 for each week, 95% CI 1.05-1.67, P=.02). CONCLUSION: Neurodevelopment impairment in twin-twin transfusion syndrome survivors treated with laser surgery is associated with advanced gestational age at laser surgery, low gestational age at birth, low birth weight, and high Quintero stage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据