Prenatal Spina Bifida Repair: Defendable Trespassing of MOMS Criteria Results in Commendable Personalized Medicine

Abstract

Introduction: We hypothesize that after publication of the quintessence of the MOMS trial, eligibility criteria for prenatal spina bifida (SB) repair may be modified if a tenable argumentation underlies this decision. Methods: Our first 154 fetal surgery patients were analyzed with particular focus on how many, which, and why the original eligibility criteria, set forth by the MOMS Trial Protocol, were disobeyed, and what the eventually detectable, negative and positive impacts of these deviations on outcomes were. Results: A total of 152 patients (2 missing consent) were included (100%). In 69 patients (45.4%), a total of 89 eligibility criteria were disobeyed. In 54 (35.6%) cases, the following maternal criteria were concerned: gestational age at operation of >25+6 weeks in 17 (11.2%), uterine pathologies in 13 (8.6%) women, preoperative BMI ≥35 kg/m² in 12 (7.9%), previous hysterotomy in 7 (4.6%), previous prematurity in 3 (2%), HIV/hepatitis B in 2 (1.3%), psychosocial issues in 2 (1.3%), and placenta praevia in 1 (0.7%). In 32 (21.1%) cases, fetal criteria were disobeyed 34 times: Fetal anomaly unrelated to SB in 19 (12.5%), no/minimal evidence of hindbrain herniation in 13 (8.6%), and severe kyphosis in 2 (1.3%). We could not identify cases where non-observation of criteria led to clear-cut maternal and/or fetal disadvantages. Conclusion: This study shows that MOMS trial eligibility criteria for prenatal SB repair should be modified or even abandoned with adequate medical and ethical argumentation, and with written parental informed consent after non-directive, full disclosure counseling. This clear-cut change of paradigm is a necessity as it leads toward personalized medicine, allowing more fetuses to benefit from fetal surgery than would have benefitted with the former, published, MOMS criteria in place.