Top

Published in:

01-04-2017 | Original Paper

A comparison of the MOMS trial results to a contemporaneous, single-institution, postnatal closure cohort

Authors: Nicholas M. B. Laskay, Anastasia A. Arynchyna, Samuel G. McClugage III, Betsy Hopson, Chevis Shannon, Benjamin Ditty, John C. Wellons III, Jeffrey P. Blount, Brandon G. Rocque

Published in: Child's Nervous System | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluate a single-institution cohort of mothers contemporaneous with the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS) trial to determine the generalizability of MOMS results and compare shunt rates.

Methods

A retrospective chart review identified patients with myelomeningocele born between 2003 and 2009. We applied MOMS eligibility criteria and compared sociodemographic variables between patients at our institution who would have been eligible or ineligible and MOMS participants. Finally, we applied the original MOMS primary outcome and the revised primary outcome to our cohort.

Results

Of the 78 patients, 55 (70.5%) were eligible for the MOMS trial. Mean maternal age, race, and marital status were different from both MOMS groups. Comparing our series to MOMS postnatal shows fewer female infants (44.9 vs. 63.8%, p = 0.017) and more thoracic lesions (12.8 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.038). Shunt rates in our cohort (84.6%) were higher than MOMS prenatal and similar to MOMS postnatal (44.0 and 83.7%, respectively). Fewer children met the original primary outcome than the postnatal group (84.6 vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between our cohort and the prenatal group (84.6 vs. 72.5%, p = 0.058). When applying the revised criteria, we find the opposite: a significant difference between local and MOMS prenatal (84.6 vs. 49.5%, p < 0.001) but no difference between the local group and MOMS postnatal (84.6 vs. 87.0%, p = 0.662).

Conclusions

Mothers in our cohort differ from mothers enrolled in MOMS via several sociodemographic factors. Baseline fetal characteristics show a significantly higher functional lesion level in between our cohort and MOMS. Treatment of hydrocephalus in our series tracks almost identically with original MOMS shunt criteria. Revision of the criteria led to greater concordance between meeting criteria and receiving a shunt in MOMS patients, but changes the results in our series.

Burmeister R, Hannay HJ, Copeland K et al (2005) Attention problems and executive functions in children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Child Neuropsychol 11:265–283. doi:10.1080/092970490911324 CrossRefPubMed

Elgamal EA (2012) Natural history of hydrocephalus in children with spinal open neural tube defect. Surg Neurol Int 3:112. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.101801 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Januschek E, Röhrig A, Kunze S et al (2016) Myelomeningocele—a single institute analysis of the years 2007 to 2015. Childs Nerv Syst 32:1281–1287. doi:10.1007/s00381-016-3079-1 CrossRefPubMed

Morota N, Ihara S (2008) Postnatal ascent of the cerebellar tonsils in Chiari malformation type II following surgical repair of myelomeningocele. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2:188–193. doi:10.3171/PED/2008/2/9/188 CrossRefPubMed

Radcliff E, Cassell CH, Laditka SB et al (2016) Factors associated with the timeliness of postnatal surgical repair of spina bifida. Childs Nerv Syst 32:1479–1487. doi:10.1007/s00381-016-3105-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vinck A, Maassen B, Mullaart R, Rotteveel J (2006) Arnold-Chiari-II malformation and cognitive functioning in spina bifida. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 77:1083–1086. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.075887 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wiedenbauer G, Jansen-Osmann P (2006) Spatial knowledge of children with spina bifida in a virtual large-scale space. Brain Cogn 62:120–127. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2006.04.003 CrossRefPubMed

Yeates KO, Loss N, Colvin AN, Enrile BG (2003) Do children with myelomeningocele and hydrocephalus display nonverbal learning disabilities? An empirical approach to classification. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 9:653–662. doi:10.1017/S1355617703940057 CrossRefPubMed

Bowman RM, Boshnjaku V, McLone DG (2009) The changing incidence of myelomeningocele and its impact on pediatric neurosurgery: a review from the Children’s Memorial Hospital. Childs Nerv Syst 25:801–806. doi:10.1007/s00381-009-0865-z CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bowman RM, McLone DG, Grant JA et al (2001) Spina bifida outcome: a 25-year prospective. Pediatr Neurosurg 34:114–120 doi: 56005CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kshettry VR, Kelly ML, Rosenbaum BP et al (2014) Myelomeningocele: surgical trends and predictors of outcome in the United States, 1988-2010. J Neurosurg Pediatr 13:666–678. doi:10.3171/2014.3.PEDS13597 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Marreiros H, Loff C, Calado E (2015) Who needs surgery for pediatric myelomeningocele? A retrospective study and literature review. J Spinal Cord Med 38:626–640. doi:10.1179/2045772314Y.0000000229 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Mayer S, Weisser M, Till H et al (2010) Congenital myelomeningocele—do we have to change our management? Cerebrospinal Fluid Res 7:17. doi:10.1186/1743-8454-7-17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Schoenmakers MA, Uiterwaal CS, Gulmans VA, Gooskens RH, Helders PJ (2005) Determinants of functional independence and quality of life in children with spina bifida. Clin Rehabil 19:677–685

15.

Adzick NS, Thom EA, Spong CY et al (2011) A randomized trial of prenatal versus postnatal repair of myelomeningocele. N Engl J Med 364:993–1004. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1014379 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Tulipan N, Wellons JC, Thom EA et al (2015) Prenatal surgery for myelomeningocele and the need for cerebrospinal fluid shunt placement. J Neurosurg Pediatr 16:613–620. doi:10.3171/2015.7.PEDS15336 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Grivell RM, Andersen C, Dodd JM (2014) Prenatal versus postnatal repair procedures for spina bifida for improving infant and maternal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008825.pub2CD008825

Title: A comparison of the MOMS trial results to a contemporaneous, single-institution, postnatal closure cohort
Authors: Nicholas M. B. Laskay
Anastasia A. Arynchyna
Samuel G. McClugage III
Betsy Hopson
Chevis Shannon
Benjamin Ditty
John C. Wellons III
Jeffrey P. Blount
Brandon G. Rocque
Publication date: 01-04-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Child's Nervous System / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0256-7040
Electronic ISSN: 1433-0350
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-016-3328-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

A comparison of the MOMS trial results to a contemporaneous, single-institution, postnatal closure cohort

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Multiple neural tube defects: a rare combination of limited dorsal myeloschisis, diplomyelia with dorsal bony spur, sacral meningocoele, syringohydromyelia, and tethered cord

A comparison of clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes between pediatric skull base and non-skull base meningiomas

Moyamoya disease is a vascular form of neurocristopathy: disease of the embryologic cephalic neural crest

Giant posterior fossa dural cavernoma in a child

Results of the prophylactic surgery of lumbosacral lipomas: the pendulum of management?

Traumatic elevated vertex fracture with delayed increase in intracranial pressure: a rare case