4.6 Article

Residual anastomoses in twin-twin transfusion syndrome after laser: the Solomon randomized trial

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.012

关键词

residual anastomoses; Solomon; twin anemia polycythemia sequence; twin-twin transfusion syndrome

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [ZonMw 92003545]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Residual anastomoses after fetoscopic laser surgery for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) may lead to severe postoperative complications, including recurrent TTTS and twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS). A novel technique (Solomon technique) using laser coagulation of the entire vascular equator was recently investigated in a randomized controlled trial (Solomon trial) and compared with the Standard selective laser technique. The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the occurrence and characteristics of residual anastomoses in placentas included in the Solomon trial. STUDY DESIGN: International multicenter randomized controlled trial in TTTS, randomized 1:1 ratio to either the Solomon laser technique or Standard laser technique. At time of laser, surgeons recorded whether they considered the procedure to be complete. Placental dye injection was performed after birth in the participating centers to evaluate the presence of residual anastomoses. RESULTS: A total of 151 placentas were included in the study. The percentage of placentas with residual anastomoses in the Solomon group and Standard group was 19% (14/74) and 34% (26/77), respectively (P = .04). The percentage of placentas with residual anastomoses in the subgroup of cases where the procedure was recorded as complete was 8/65 (12%) and 22/69 (32%) in the Solomon group and Standard group, respectively (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The Solomon laser technique reduces the risk of residual anastomoses. However, careful follow-up remains essential also after the Solomon technique, as complete dichorionization is not always achieved.

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