Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T08:41:05.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PRENATAL MANAGEMENT OF NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS: TIME FOR A RE-APPRAISAL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2012

MASAYUKI ENDO ,
TIM VAN MIEGHEM ,
ELISENDA EIXARCH ,
PAOLO DE COPPI ,
GUNNAR NAULAERS ,
FRANK VAN CALENBERGH ,
LUC DE CATTE ,
ROLAND DEVLIEGER ,
LIESBETH LEWI  and
ALEX EGGINK
...Show all authors
MASAYUKI ENDO
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Laboratory Experimental Gynaecology, Research Unit Fetus Placenta Neonate, Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
TIM VAN MIEGHEM
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. Laboratory Experimental Gynaecology, Research Unit Fetus Placenta Neonate, Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
ELISENDA EIXARCH
Affiliation:
Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Clinic-Idibaps, University of Barcelona and CIBER-ER, Barcelona, Spain.
PAOLO DE COPPI
Affiliation:
Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
GUNNAR NAULAERS
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
FRANK VAN CALENBERGH
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
LUC DE CATTE
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
ROLAND DEVLIEGER
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
LIESBETH LEWI
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
ALEX EGGINK
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands and representing the Dutch PROSPER consortium.
KYPROS NICOLAIDES
Affiliation:
Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Fetal Medicine Unit, King's College London, United Kingdom.
EDUARDO GRATACOS
Affiliation:
Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Clinic-Idibaps, University of Barcelona and CIBER-ER, Barcelona, Spain.
JAN DEPREST*
Affiliation:
Division Woman and Child, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. Experimental Programme on Prenatal Management of Neural Tube Defects, Centre for Surgical Technologies, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Laboratory Experimental Gynaecology, Research Unit Fetus Placenta Neonate, Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
*
Jan Deprest, MD PhD, Clinical Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Academic Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Jan.Deprest@uzleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The prevalence of neural tube defects (NTD) in Europe is around 9 per 10,000 births making it one of the most frequent congential anomalies affecting the central nervous system. NTD encompass all anomalies that are secondary to failure of closure of the neural tube. In this review, we will first summarize the embryology and some epidemiologic aspects related to NTDs. The review focuses on myelomeningocele (MMC), which is the most common distal closure defect. We will describe the secondary pathologic changes in the central and peripheral nervous system that appear later on in pregnancy and contribute to the condition's morbidity. The postnatal impact of MMC mainly depends on the upper level of the lesion. In Europe, the vast majority of parents with a fetus with prenatally diagnosed NTDs, including MMC, opt for termination of pregnancy, as they are apparently perceived as very debilitating conditions. Animal experiments have shown that prenatal surgery can reverse this sequence. This paved the way for clinical fetal surgery resulting in an apparent improvement in outcome. The results of a recent randomized trial confirmed better outcomes after fetal repair compared to postnatal repair; with follow up for 30 months. This should prompt fetal medicine specialists to reconsider their position towards this condition as well as its prenatal repair. The fetal surgery centre in Leuven did not have a clinical programme for fetal NTD repair until the publication of the MOMS trial. In order to offer this procedure safely and effectively, we allied to a high volume centre willing to share its expertise and assist us in the first procedures. Given the maternal side effects of current open fetal surgical techniques, we have intensified our research programmes to explore minimally invasive alternatives. Below we will describe how we are implementing this.

Type
Review Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 23 , Issue 3-4 , November 2012 , pp. 158 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Garne, E, Dolk, H, Loane, M, Boyd, PA. EUROCAT website data on prenatal detection rates of congenital anomalies. J Med Screening 2010; 17: 97–98.Google Scholar
2Adzick, NS, Thom, EA, Spong, CY, Brock, JW 3rd, Burrows, PK, Johnson, MPet al.A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele. N Engl J Med 2011 17; 364: 993–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Sival, DA, Guerra, M, den Dunnen, WF, Batiz, LF, Alvial, G, Castaneyra-Perdomo, Aet al.Neuroependymal denudation is in progress in full-term human foetal spina bifida aperta. Brain Pathol 2011; 21: 163–79.Google Scholar
4Korenromp, MJ, van Gool, JD, Bruinese, HW, Kriek, R. Early fetal leg movements in myelomeningocele. Lancet 1986; 1: 917–18.Google Scholar
5Sival, DA, Begeer, JH, Staal-Schreinemachers, AL, Vos-Niel, JM, Beekhuis, JR, Prechtl, HF. Perinatal motor behaviour and neurological outcome in spina bifida aperta. Early Hum Dev 1997; 50: 27–37.Google Scholar
6Meuli, M, Meuli-Simmen, C, Hutchins, GM, Seller, MJ, Harrison, MR, Adzick, NS . The spinal cord lesion in human fetuses with myelomeningocele: implications for fetal surgery. Pediatr Surg 1997; 32: 448–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Hutchins, GM, Meuli, M, Meuli-Simmen, C, Jordan, MA, Heffez, DS, Blakemore, KJ. Acquired spinal cord injury in human fetuses with myelomeningocele. Pediatr Path Lab Med 1996; 16: 701–12.Google Scholar
8Bowman, RM, McLone, DG, Grant, JA, Tomita, T, Ito, JA. Spina bifida outcome: a 25-year prospective. Pediatr Neurosurg 2001; 34: 114–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Maher, CO, Goumnerova, L, Madsen, JR, Proctor, M, Scott, RM. Outcome following multiple repeated spinal cord untethering operations. J Neurosurg 2007; 106: 434–38.Google Scholar
10Mitchell, LE, Adzick, NS, Melchionne, J, Pasquariello, PS, Sutton, LN, Whitehead, AS. Spina bifida. Lancet 2004; 364: 1885–95.Google Scholar
11Bruner, JP, Tulipan, N. Tell the truth about spina bifida. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 595–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12McLone, DG, Dias, MS. The Chiari II malformation: cause and impact. Child's Nerv Syst 2003; 19: 540–50.Google Scholar
13Rintoul, NE, Sutton, LN, Hubbard, AM, Cohen, B, Melchionni, J, Pasquariello, PS, et al.A new look at myelomeningoceles: functional level, vertebral level, shunting, and the implications for fetal intervention. Pediatrics 2002; 109: 409–13.Google Scholar
14Caldarelli, M, Di Rocco, C, La Marca, F. Shunt complications in the first postoperative year in children with meningomyelocele. Childs Nerv Syst 1996; 12): 748–54.Google Scholar
15Hunt, GM, Oakeshott, P. Outcome in people with open spina bifida at age 35: prospective community based cohort study. BMJ 2003; 326: 1365–66.Google Scholar
16Zipitis, CS, Paschalides, C. Caring for a child with spina bifida: understanding the child and carer. J Child Health Care 2003; 7: 101–12.Google Scholar
17National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, US CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/spinabifida/data.htmlGoogle Scholar
18Ghi, T, Pilu, G, Falco, P, Segata, M, Carletti, A, Cocchi, Get al.Prenatal diagnosis of open and closed spina bifida. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 899–903.Google Scholar
19Blumenfeld, Z, Siegler, E, Bronshtein, M. The early diagnosis of neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 863–71.Google Scholar
20Nicolaides, KH, Campbell, S, Gabbe, SG, Guidetti, R. Ultrasound screening for spina bifida: cranial and cerebellar signs. Lancet 1986; 2: 72–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21D'Addario, V, Rossi, AC, Pinto, V, Pintucci, A, Di Cagno, L. Comparison of six sonographic signs in the prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida. Perinat Med 2008; 36: 330–34.Google Scholar
22Shipp, TD, Benacerraf, BR. Second trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 296–307.Google Scholar
23Crane, JP, LeFevre, ML, Winborn, RC, Evans, JK, Ewigman, BG, Bain, RP, et al.A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on the detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses. The RADIUS Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 392–99.Google Scholar
24Bruner, JP, Tulipan, N, Dabrowiak, ME, Luker, KS, Walters, K, Burns, P, et al.Upper level of the spina bifida defect: how good are we? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 612–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Shaer, CM, Chescheir, N, Schulkin, J. Myelomeningocele: a review of the epidemiology, genetics, risk factors for conception, prenatal diagnosis, and prognosis for affected individuals. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007; 62: 471–79.Google Scholar
26Chaoui, R, Benoit, B, Mitkowska-Wozniak, H, Heling, KS, Nicolaides, KH. Assessment of intracranial translucency (IT) in the detection of spina bifida at the 11–13-week scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 249–52.Google Scholar
27Lachmann, R, Chaoui, R, Moratalla, J, Picciarelli, G, Nicolaides, KH. Posterior brain in fetuses with open spina bifida at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 103–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Au, KS, Ashley-Koch, A, Northrup, H. Epidemiologic and genetic aspects of spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2010; 16: 6–15.Google Scholar
29Botto, LD, Moore, CA, Khoury, MJ, Erickson, JD. Neural-tube defects. New Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1509–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Boulet, SL, Yang, Q, Mai, C, Kirby, RS, Collins, JS, Robbins, JM, et al.Trends in the postfortification prevalence of spina bifida and anencephaly in the United States. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2008; 82: 527–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Williams, LJ, Rasmussen, SA, Flores, A, Kirby, RS, Edmonds, LD. Decline in the prevalence of spina bifida and anencephaly by race/ethnicity: 1995–2002. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 580–86.Google Scholar
32Dolk, H, Loane, M, Garne, E. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Exp Med Biol 2010; 686: 349–64.Google Scholar
33Busby, A, Abramsky, L, Dolk, H, Armstrong, B, Addor, MC, Anneren, G, et al.Preventing neural tube defects in Europe: a missed opportunity. Reprod Toxicol 2005; 20: 393–402.Google Scholar
34Abramsky, L, Busby, A, Dolk, H. Promotion of periconceptional folic acid has had limited success. J R Soc Promot Health 2005; 125: 206–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Boyd, PA, Devigan, C, Khoshnood, B, Loane, M, Garne, E, Dolk, H. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. BJOG 2008; 115: 689–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Wyldes, MP, Tonks, AM. Termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly: a population-based study 1995 to 2004. BJOG 2007; 114: 639–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Main, DM, Mennuti, MT. Neural tube defects: issues in prenatal diagnosis and counselling. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 1–16.Google Scholar
38Husler, MR, Danzer, E, Johnson, MP, Bebbington, M, Sutton, L, Adzick, NS, et al.Prenatal diagnosis and postnatal outcome of fetal spinal defects without Arnold-Chiari II malformation. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 1050–57.Google Scholar
39Michejda, M.Intrauterine treatment of spina bifida: primate model. Z Kinderchir 1984; 39: 259–61.Google Scholar
40Meuli, M, Meuli-Simmen, C, Yingling, CD, Hutchins, GM, Hoffman, KM, Harrison, MR, et al.Creation of myelomeningocele in utero: a model of functional damage from spinal cord exposure in fetal sheep. J Pediatr Surg 1995; 30: 1028–32.Google Scholar
41Heffez, DS, Aryanpur, J, Hutchins, GM, Freeman, JM. The paralysis associated with myelomeningocele: clinical and experimental data implicating a preventable spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery 1990; 26: 987–92.Google Scholar
42Heffez, DS, Aryanpur, J, Rotellini, NA, Hutchins, GM, Freeman, JM. Intrauterine repair of experimental surgically created dysraphism. Neurosurgery 1993; 32: 1005–10.Google Scholar
43Danzer, E, Kiddoo, DA, Redden, RA, Robinson, L, Radu, A, Zderic, SAet al.Structural and functional characterization of bladder smooth muscle in fetal rats with retinoic acid-induced myelomeningocele. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2007; 292: F197–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Danzer, E, Radu, A, Robinson, LE, Volpe, MV, Adzick, NS, Flake, AW. Morphologic analysis of the neuromuscular development of the anorectal unit in fetal rats with retinoic acid induced myelomeningocele. Neurosci Lett 2008; 430: 157–62.Google Scholar
45Danzer, E, Zhang, L, Radu, A, Bebbington, MW, Liechty, KW, Adzick, NS, et al.Amniotic fluid levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein in fetal rats with retinoic acid induced myelomeningocele: a potential marker for spinal cord injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204: 178 e1–11.Google Scholar
46Julia, V, Sancho, MA, Albert, A, Conill, J, Martinez, A, Grande, C, et al.Prenatal covering of the spinal cord decreases neurologic sequelae in a myelomeningocele model. J Pediatr Surg 2006; 41: 1125–129.Google Scholar
47Meuli, M, Meuli-Simmen, C, Hutchins, GM, Yingling, CD, Hoffman, KM, Harrison, MR, et al.In utero surgery rescues neurological function at birth in sheep with spina bifida. Nat Med 1995; 1: 342–47.Google Scholar
48Meuli, M, Meuli-Simmen, C, Yingling, CD, Hutchins, GM, Timmel, GB, Harrison, MR, et al.In utero repair of experimental myelomeningocele saves neurological function at birth. J Pediatr Surg 1996; 31: 397–402.Google Scholar
49Bouchard, S, Davey, MG, Rintoul, NE, Walsh, DS, Rorke, LB, Adzick, NS. Correction of hindbrain herniation and anatomy of the vermis after in utero repair of myelomeningocele in sheep. J Pediatr Surg 2003; 38: 451–58.Google Scholar
50Paek, BW, Farmer, DL, Wilkinson, CC, Albanese, CT, Peacock, W, Harrison, MR, et al.Hindbrain herniation develops in surgically created myelomeningocele but is absent after repair in fetal lambs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 1119–123.Google Scholar
51Deprest, JA, Flake, AW, Gratacos, E, Ville, Y, Hecher, K, Nicolaides, K, et al.The making of fetal surgery. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30: 653–67.Google Scholar
52Harrison, MR, Filly, RA, Golbus, MS, Berkowitz, RL, Callen, PW, Canty, TGet al.Fetal treatment 1982. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 1651–52.Google Scholar
53Longaker, MT, Whitby, DJ, Adzick, NS, Kaban, LB, Harrison, MR. Fetal surgery for cleft lip: a plea for caution. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 88: 1087–92.Google Scholar
54Adzick, NS. Open fetal surgery for life-threatening fetal anomalies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 15: 1–8.Google Scholar
55Wilson, RD, Lemerand, K, Johnson, MP, Flake, AW, Bebbington, M, Hedrick, HL, et al.Reproductive outcomes in subsequent pregnancies after a pregnancy complicated by open maternal-fetal surgery (1996–2007). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 209 e1–6.Google Scholar
56Luks, FI, Deprest, JA. Endoscopic fetal surgery: a new alternative? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 52: 1–3.Google Scholar
57Luks, FI, Peers, KH, Deprest, JA, Lerut, TE, Vandenberghe, K. The effect of open and endoscopic fetal surgery on uteroplacental oxygen delivery in the sheep. J Pediatr Surg 1996; 31: 310–14.Google Scholar
58Deprest, JA, Luks, FI, Peers, KH, Vandenberghe, K, Lerut, TE, Brosens, IA, et al.Intrauterine endoscopic creation of urinary tract obstruction in the fetal lamb: a model for fetal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 1422–426.Google Scholar
59Gratacos, E, Wu, J, Devlieger, R, Bonati, F, Lerut, T, Vanamo, K, et al.Nitrous oxide amniodistention compared with fluid amniodistention reduces operation time while inducing no changes in fetal acid-base status in a sheep model for endoscopic fetal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 538–43.Google Scholar
60Skarsgard, ED, Bealer, JF, Meuli, M, Adzick, NS, Harrison, MR. Fetal endoscopic (‘Fetendo’) surgery: the relationship between insufflating pressure and the fetoplacental circulation. J Pediatr Surg 1995; 30: 1165–168.Google Scholar
61Bruner, JP, Richards, WO, Tulipan, NB, Arney, TL. Endoscopic coverage of fetal myelomeningocele in utero. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 153–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Farmer, DL, von Koch, CS, Peacock, WJ, Danielpour, M, Gupta, N, Lee, H, et al.In utero repair of myelomeningocele: experimental pathophysiology, initial clinical experience, and outcomes. Arch Surg 2003; 138: 872–78.Google Scholar
63Kohl, T, Hering, R, Heep, A, Schaller, C, Meyer, B, Greive, C, et al.Percutaneous fetoscopic patch coverage of spina bifida aperta in the human–early clinical experience and potential. Fetal Diagn Ther 2006; 21: 185–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Verbeek, RJ, Heep, A, Maurits, NM, Cremer, R, Hoving, EW, Brouwer, OF, et al.Fetal endoscopic myelomeningocele closure preserves segmental neurological function. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012; 54: 15–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65Adzick, NS, Sutton, LN, Crombleholme, TM, Flake, AW. Successful fetal surgery for spina bifida. Lancet 1998; 21; 352: 1675–676.Google Scholar
66Bruner, JP, Tulipan, NB, Richards, WO, Walsh, WF, Boehm, FH, Vrabcak, EK. In utero repair of myelomeningocele: a comparison of endoscopy and hysterotomy. Fetal Diagn Ther 2000; 15: 83–88.Google Scholar
67Walsh, WF, Chescheir, NC, Gillam-Krakauer, M, McPheeters, ML, McKoy, JN, Jerome, Ret al. Maternal-Fetal Surgical Procedures. Technical Brief No. 5. (Prepared by the Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290–2007-10065.) AHRQ Publication No. 10(11)-EHC059-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2011.Google Scholar
68Johnson, MP, Gerdes, M, Rintoul, N, Pasquariello, P, Melchionni, J, Sutton, LN, et al.Maternal-fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1145–150.Google Scholar
69Johnson, MP, Sutton, LN, Rintoul, N, Crombleholme, TM, Flake, AW, Howell, LJ, et al.Fetal myelomeningocele repair: short-term clinical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 482–87.Google Scholar
70Bruner, JP, Tulipan, N, Paschall, RL, Boehm, FH, Walsh, WF, Silva, SR, et al.Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele and the incidence of shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. JAMA 1999; 282: 1819–825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Tulipan, N, Bruner, JP. Fetal surgery for spina bifida. Lancet 1999; 353: 406.Google Scholar
72Bruner, JP, Tulipan, N. Intrauterine repair of spina bifida. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005; 48: 942–55.Google Scholar
73Hamdan, AH, Walsh, W, Bruner, JP, Tulipan, N. Intrauterine myelomeningocele repair: effect on short-term complications of prematurity. Fetal Diagn Ther 2004; 19: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74Tulipan, N, Sutton, LN, Bruner, JP, Cohen, BM, Johnson, M, Adzick, NS. The effect of intrauterine myelomeningocele repair on the incidence of shunt-dependent hydrocephalus. Pediatr Neurosurg 2003; 38: 27–33.Google Scholar
75Tulipan, N. Intrauterine myelomeningocele repair. Clin Perinatol 2003; 30: 521–30.Google Scholar
76Danzer, E, Gerdes, M, Bebbington, MW, Koh, J, Adzick, SN, Johnson, MP. Fetal myelomeningocele surgery: preschool functional status using the Functional Independence Measure for children (WeeFIM). Childs Nerv Syst 2011; 27: 1083–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77Danzer, E, Gerdes, M, Bebbington, MW, Zarnow, DM, Adzick, NS, Johnson, MP. Preschool neurodevelopmental outcome of children following fetal myelomeningocele closure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 450 e1–9.Google Scholar
78Holzbeierlein, J, Pope, JI, Adams, MC, Bruner, J, Tulipan, N, Brock, JW 3rd. The urodynamic profile of myelodysplasia in childhood with spinal closure during gestation. J Urol 2000; 164: 1336–339.Google Scholar
79Holmes, NM, Nguyen, HT, Harrison, MR, Farmer, DL, Baskin, LS. Fetal intervention for myelomeningocele: effect on postnatal bladder function. J Urol 2001; 166: 2383–386.Google Scholar
80Tubbs, RS, Chambers, MR, Smyth, MD, Bartolucci, AA, Bruner, JP, Tulipan, Net al.Late gestational intrauterine myelomeningocele repair does not improve lower extremity function. Pediatr Neurosurg 2003; 38: 128–32.Google Scholar
81Danzer, E, Adzick, NS. Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: patient selection, perioperative management and outcomes. Diagn Ther 2011; 30: 163–73.Google Scholar
82Bebbington, MW, Danzer, E, Johnson, MP, Adzick, NS. Open fetal surgery for myelomeningocele. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 689–94.Google Scholar
83Wilson, RD, Johnson, MP, Crombleholme, TM, Flake, AW, Hedrick, HL, King, M, et al.Chorioamniotic membrane separation following open fetal surgery: pregnancy outcome. Fetal Diagn Ther 2003; 18: 314–20.Google Scholar
84Sroka, M, Świątkowska-Freund, M, Gołębiewski, A, Piotr Czauderna, P, Preis, K. Fetal surgery: future or way leading to nowhere. First experiences. Przegląd Pediatryczny, 2007: 37: 7–9.Google Scholar
85Danzer, E, Johnson, MP, Adzick, NS. Fetal surgery for myelomeningocele: progress and perspectives. Dev Med Child Neurol 2012; 54: 8–14.Google Scholar
86MoiseKJ, Jr KJ, Jr, Johnson, A, Carpenter, RJ, Baschat, AA, Platt, LD. Fetal intervention: providing reasonable access to quality care. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 408–10.Google Scholar
87Sanchez e Oliveira Rde, C, Valente, PR, Abou-Jamra, RC, Araujo, A, Saldiva, PH, Pedreira, DA. Biosynthetic cellulose induces the formation of a neoduramater following pre-natal correction of meningomyelocele in fetal sheep. Acta Cir Bras 2007; 22: 174–81.Google Scholar
88Fontecha, CG, Peiro, JL, Sevilla, JJ, Aguirre, M, Soldado, F, Fresno, L, et al.Fetoscopic coverage of experimental myelomeningocele in sheep using a patch with surgical sealant. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 156: 171–76.Google Scholar
89Watanabe, M, Jo, J, Radu, A, Kaneko, M, Tabata, Y, Flake, AW. A tissue engineering approach for prenatal closure of myelomeningocele with gelatin sponges incorporating basic fibroblast growth factor. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010; 16: 1645–55.Google Scholar
90Watanabe, M, Li, H, Roybal, J, Santore, M, Radu, A, Jo, J, et al.A tissue engineering approach for prenatal closure of myelomeningocele: comparison of gelatin sponge and microsphere scaffolds and bioactive protein coatings. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011; 17: 1099–110.Google Scholar
91Sanchez e Oliveira Rde, C, Valente, PR, Abou-Jamra, RC, Araujo, A, Saldiva, PH, Pedreira, DA. Biosynthetic cellulose induces the formation of a neoduramater following pre-natal correction of meningomyelocele in fetal sheep. Acta Cir Bras 2007; 22: 174–81.Google Scholar
92Fontecha, CG, Peiro, JL, Sevilla, JJ, Aguirre, M, Soldado, F, Fresno, L, et al.Fetoscopic coverage of experimental myelomeningocele in sheep using a patch with surgical sealant. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 156: 171–76.Google Scholar
93Fontecha, CG, Peiro, JL, Aguirre, M, Soldado, F, Anor, S, Fresno, L, et al.Inert patch with bioadhesive for gentle fetal surgery of myelomeningocele in a sheep model. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 146: 174–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94Bilic, G, Brubaker, C, Messersmith, PB, Mallik, AS, Quinn, TM, Haller, C, et al.Injectable candidate sealants for fetal membrane repair: bonding and toxicity in vitro. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 85 e1–9.Google Scholar
95Abou-Jamra, RC, Valente, PR, Araujo, A, Sanchez e Oliveira Rde, C, Saldiva, PH, Pedreira, DA. Simplified correction of a meningomyelocele-like defect in the ovine fetus. Acta Cir Bras 2009; 24: 239–44.Google Scholar
96Watanabe, M, Jo, J, Radu, A, Kaneko, M, Tabata, Y, Flake, AW. A tissue engineering approach for prenatal closure of myelomeningocele with gelatin sponges incorporating basic fibroblast growth factor. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010; 16: 1645–55.Google Scholar
97Hosper, NA, Eggink, AJ, Roelofs, LA, Wijnen, RM, van Luyn, MJ, Bank, RAet al.Intra-uterine tissue engineering of full-thickness skin defects in a fetal sheep model. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 3910–919.Google Scholar
98http://www.eurocat-network.eu/accessprevalencedata/prevalencetables (prevalence rates of the last 5 years) Accessed 19 February 2012.Google Scholar
99Jani, JC, Nicolaides, KH, Gratacos, E, Valencia, CM, Done, E, Martinez, JM, et al.Severe diaphragmatic hernia treated by fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 340: 304–10.Google Scholar
100Kohl, T, Tchatcheva, K, Weinbach, J, Hering, R, Kozlowski, P, Stressig, R, et al.Partial amniotic carbon dioxide insufflation (PACI) during minimally invasive fetoscopic surgery: early clinical experience in humans. Surgical endoscopy. [Clinical Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. 2010; 24: 432–44.Google Scholar
101Ruano, R, Duarte, SA, Pimenta, EJ, Takashi, E, da Silva, MM, Tannuri, U, et al.Comparison between fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion using a 1.0-mm fetoscope and prenatal expectant management in severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Fetal Diagn Ther 2011; 29: 64–70.Google Scholar