4.5 Review

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 6 years of age after intrauterine laser therapy for twin-twin transfusion syndrome

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume 101, Issue 12, Pages 1200-1205

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apa.12017

Keywords

Intrauterine laser therapy; Neurodevelopmental outcome; Twin-twin transfusion syndrome

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was undertaken to evaluate neurodevelopmental outcome of children at 6 years of age after intrauterine laser therapy for Twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS). This is part of a longitudinal study in children after intrauterine laser therapy for TTTS; 190 of 254 (74.8%) children, previously investigated at a median age of 2 years 10 months, were re-evaluated at 6 years 5 months (range 4 years 11 months 10 years 4 months). Sixty-four patients were not examined due to loss of contact. The median gestational age at birth was 34 + 3 weeks. The study included a physical/neurological examination, a standardized neurodevelopmental test (Kaufman-ABC) and/or results from the national screening programme for children as well as questionnaires. Patients were grouped in three outcome categories: group I: normal examination and test result; group II: minor neurological deficiencies and normal test results; group III: major neurological deficiencies and/or test results below minus two standard deviations. The following results were obtained at 6 years 5 months (for comparison, results of the same patients at 2 years 10 months in brackets). Group I: 79.5% (84.2%); group II: 11.6% (8.9%); group III: 8.9% (6.8%). Twenty-one (11%) patients had a worse and 8 (4.2%) an improved classification at 6 years 5 months as compared to 2 years 10 months. Overall, the results with 6 years did not significantly differ from the results with 2 years. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 6 years 5 months was not statistically, significantly different from outcome at 2 years 10 months.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available