Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Open and Closed Oocyte Vitrification Systems on Embryo Development: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Totally Endoscopic Replacement of the Ascending Aorta and the Aortic Root including the Aortic Valve via Right Mini-Thoracotomy: A Multicenter Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/jcm13092649
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Perinatal Outcomes of Intrauterine Interventions for Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma Based on Different Surgical Techniques—A Systematic Review

by
Hiroko Konno
1,
Oluwateniayo O. Okpaise
2,
Lourenço Sbragia
3,
Gabriele Tonni
4 and
Rodrigo Ruano
5,*
1
Division of Perinatology, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, Maternal and Perinatal Care Center, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Hamamatsu 430-0906, Japan
2
Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham ME7 5NY, UK
3
Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery and Anatomy, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14049-900, SP, Brazil
4
Prenatal Diagnostic Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Neonatology, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), AUSL Reggio Emilia, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
5
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(9), 2649; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092649
Submission received: 28 February 2024 / Revised: 16 April 2024 / Accepted: 25 April 2024 / Published: 30 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Obstetrics & Gynecology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) submitted to prenatal interventions. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of fetal SCT patients and compared the outcomes between open fetal surgery and percutaneous intervention. In addition, we also compared the results of SCT fetuses who did not undergo any surgical intervention (NI). Results: We identified 16 cases of open fetal surgery (OS), 48 cases of percutaneous fetal intervention (PI), and 93 NI patients. The survival rate was 56.2% in OS, 45.8% in PI (p = 0.568), and 71.0% in NI patients. The gestational age at delivery was earlier in cases where there was no survival compared to cases where the fetuses did survive across all evaluated cohorts (OS: p = 0.033, PI: p < 0.001, NI: p < 0.001). The gestational weeks at delivery in OS and PI fetuses were more similar; however, OS tended to be performed later on in pregnancy, and the affected fetuses had more severe presented findings. In our evaluation, we determined that the presence of fetal hydrops and cardiac failure had no significant impact on survival in SCT cases. In NI patients, polyhydramnios was much higher in fetuses who did not survive compared to their surviving cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In conclusion, gestational age at delivery can affect the short-term prognosis of fetuses affected with sacrococcygeal teratomas. Regardless of the mode of delivery or the necessity for intervention during the fetal period, monitoring for complications, including polyhydramnios, can prevent premature delivery.

1. Introduction

Teratomas are neoplasms derived from the totipotent somatic stem cells in all the fetal germ cell layers, potentially allowing for a myriad of soft-tissue structures to form [1]. While teratomas typically develop in the gonads, they can develop at any level of the midline from the pineal gland to the coccyx; sacrococcygeal teratomas (SCTs) are the most common extragonadal location, particularly in fetuses and neonates [2].
SCTs affect approximately 1 in 20,000–40,000 live births, with a solid female predominance noted [3,4,5]. Sacrococcygeal teratomas can be divided into three histological categories: immature, mature, and malignant. Mature and immature SCTs are considered to be benign tumors and make up the majority, roughly 60%, of sacrococcygeal teratomas; however, fetal intervention should be considered [6].
Close monitoring of affected fetuses should be considered, as life-threatening complications can be associated with any SCTs as they are rapidly growing and highly vascular; these include fetal hydrops, cardiac failure, and polyhydramnios. This monitoring is achieved with serial ultrasound scans to determine the tumor volume-to-fetal weight ratio (TFR), a predictive tool for fetal outcomes [1,7]. As such, different interventions have been considered for SCT management, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures.
In fetuses with a gestational age greater than 28 weeks, elective delivery can be offered. In contrast, in fetuses of younger age who are at high risk of intrauterine hemorrhage or vascular steal, surgical procedures are necessary for fetal survival [8].
The use of open fetal surgery for SCT extraction was described over 30 years ago; it involves the use of anesthesia on both mother and fetus. Maternal laparotomy and uterine incision are performed, allowing for the visualization of the teratoma; the lower extremities are then delivered from the uterus, allowing the surgical team to have ample room to debulk and resect the SCT [8,9]. Following removal, Lactated Ringer’s solution is used to replace the amniotic fluid volume, the uterine wall and maternal abdomen is sutured, and tocolytics is administrated to prevent premature uterine contractions [9]. Minimally invasive procedures, such as fetoscopic laser ablation, can be preferred over open surgery as they cause considerably fewer impediments, making this a viable option in patients for whom open surgery is contraindicated or not a desired option for the mother [9]. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is performed under ultrasonographic guidance and involves placing an 18-gauge needle containing insulated wiring to occlude feeding vessels, helping to reduce the tumor load and prolong the formation of cardiac failure [9,10]. However, fetal trauma can occur secondary to the thermal energy used to coagulate the SCT vessels; electrolyte abnormalities, including hyperkalemia, can occur as the tumor metabolites enter the fetal circulation [11]. Hence, there are no preferred therapeutic options, as advantages and disadvantages exist with both.
This study aims to systematically review different fetal interventions for sacrococcygeal teratomas. We will specifically focus on the indications for intervention, surgical technical aspects, and overall fetal outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist [12]. Our study was registered prospectively with INPLASY (INPLASY202420102; https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2024.2.0102 accessed on 23 February 2024).

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The literature we deemed eligible for inclusion included case reports and cohort or case–control studies that described cases with SCT who were prenatally diagnosed. The types of fetal surgeries included were classified as open surgery or percutaneous interventions; percutaneous interventions were defined as procedures to shrink the tumors, such as laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, thermocoagulation, embolization, and sclerosis.
Articles and studies that described procedures such as tumor cyst puncture, amnioreduction, and fetal transfusion during SCT management were excluded, as their intention was not to reduce tumor size.

2.2. Information Sources

The sources used for data collection were PubMed and Google Scholar. Papers referencing sacrococcygeal teratomas were viewed from the inception of these databases until 15 September 2023.

2.3. Search Strategy

We reviewed the literature to compare the indications for surgical intervention and the prognoses of SCT cases following open fetal surgery or percutaneous intervention, as well as papers discussing the survival rates of fetuses that did not have any fetal intervention.
The search was conducted using the following terms: “sacrococcygeal teratoma” AND “fetal intervention” OR “fetal surgery” OR “open surgery” OR “in utero treatment” OR “fetal therapy” OR “RFA” OR “laser ablation” OR “ablation” OR “coagulation” OR “thermocoagulation” OR “radiofrequency” OR “embolization” OR “coiling” OR “sclerosis” OR “alcohol”).
Cases without fetal intervention were located using the term “fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma,” and the timeframe of the papers included ranged from 2014 to 15 September 2023. The reference lists of relevant articles were reviewed manually, with duplicate cases excluded, and eligible studies were added to the results from the electronic literature search.

2.4. Selection Process

As previously stated, papers that prescribed the diagnosis of SCT in the fetal period were the focus of this review, and only papers falling into the categories of case reports and cohort or case–control studies were deemed eligible. The screening process was completed by two independent reviewers (H.K. and L.S.).

2.5. Data Extraction

Using a standardized spreadsheet, data extraction from the included articles was performed independently by the two authors who completed the data selection, H.K. and L.S. The extracted information had the first author’s name, year of publication, country of origin, study design, patient demographic data, perinatal variables (as defined in the outcome measures), and type of intervention undergone.
In cases where there was an overlap or duplication of patients between studies, the details for both studies were included for review. The overlap of study populations was assessed based on the authors, the institution where the study was performed, and the year of data collection and publication.

2.6. Outcome Measures

The indications and outcomes of open surgery and percutaneous interventions for SCT cases and between cases with and without intervention were compared.
Procedure-related variables, such as tumor size, the presence of fetal hydrops, fetal heart failure, polyhydramnios, gestation weeks, and both intervention and delivery, were obtained and compared between the survivor cases and non-survivor cases. Tumor size was determined by extracting the volume directly from an excised tumor or by measuring the tumor in all three direction planes via imaging techniques such as ultrasound. In the cases where all three directions could not be determined by ultrasound, the following formula was applied: tumor size (volume)= 4/3πa3 or 4/3π*ab(a+b)/2, in which the radius in one direction is donated by (a) and the mean of the radii in two directions (a, b).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables, and the t-test or Mann–Whitney test was used to analyze continuous variables as required. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using R Ver 4.1.0.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 6391 articles were retrieved from the electronic search, with a data breakdown of 541 citations yielded from PubMed and 5850 from Google Scholar. Following the literature review relevant to our topic, 255 papers were excluded as these were duplicates, leaving a total of 6136 abstracts and titles screened. A flowchart highlighting the process from our initial literature search to literature inclusion is shown in Figure 1.
Ultimately, out of the 6136 papers screened, 72 papers were analyzed [1,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]; all papers included in our final screening comprised case reports, case series, and cohort studies.
A total of 16 open fetal surgeries and 48 cases of percutaneous fetal intervention were identified, with the percutaneous interventions being divided into 23 laser ablations, 18 radiofrequency ablations (RFA), 5 cases of alcohol sclerosis, 1 case of coiling, and 1 case of thermocoagulation.
Ninety-three cases of SCT without any fetal intervention were also noted. These cases are reviewed and summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The characteristics of all cases are presented in Table 1. The treatment strategies depended on the policies of each facility at the time, and there were no fixed standards. In cases without fetal intervention, survival rates were significantly higher than in cohorts where surgery was the primary care method. The gestational week at delivery tended to be later. The rates of SCT complications, including fetal hydrops and fetal cardiac failure, were also lower without fetal intervention.
A total of 9 fetuses (56.2%) survived after open surgery for the fetal SCT (OS) group and 22 (45.8%) in the percutaneous intervention (PI) group (p = 0.568). The survival rates of each percutaneous intervention were 39% (laser ablation: 9/23), 67% (RFA: 12/18), 20% (alcohol sclerosis: 1/5), and 0% (coiling: 0/1 and thermocoagulation: 0/1) (p = 0.160). Although the gestational weeks at intervention tended to be earlier in the percutaneous intervention group than in the open surgery group (p = 0.061), there were no significant differences in gestational weeks at delivery between the two groups (p = 0.863). Tumors were more sizable in the open surgery group than the percutaneous intervention group (p = 0.044). There was no significant difference in the rate of fetal heart failure between the two groups (p = 1.000), but the rate of fetal hydrops was significantly higher in the open surgery group than the percutaneous intervention group (p < 0.001) (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3).
Table 4 and Table 5 show data comparing cases where fetal survival was compared to cases without. In both groups, there was no significant difference in the presence of fetal hydrops before intervention (OS: p = 0.475, PI: p = 0.107). The gestational age at delivery was earlier in non-survivors than in survivors, even excluding fetal demise cases (OS: p = 0.033, PI: p = 0.006). In the open surgery group, the tumor size of survivors was significantly smaller than that in the non-survivors (p = 0.026). In the percutaneous intervention group, tumor sizes tended to be more prominent in the poorer prognostic cases compared to their cohorts, although these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.371).
In the non-surgical groups, fetal hydrops and fetal cardiac failure were observed in 8/75 cases (10.7%) and 9/74 cases (12.2%), respectively. Despite the lack of iatrogenic intervention, the overall survival rate was 71%; five out of eight of cases (62.5%) with fetal hydrops and six out of nine cases with fetal cardiac failure.
Table 6 shows the data comparing survival cases and non-survival cases in no-intervention group. While there were no significant differences in the presence of fetal hydrops and cardiac failure between survivors and non-survivors (p = 0.111, p = 0.156), the cases with polyhydramnios in fetuses that perished were relatively high (p < 0.001).
In circumstances where fetal hydrops developed, survival rates varied between open surgeries and percutaneous procedures, with survival occurring in 7/14 cases (50%) of open surgery and in 4/15 cases (26.7%) of percutaneous intervention; 5/8 (62.5%) of the no-intervention cases with fetal hydrops survived.
When reviewing papers that discussed the development of cardiac failure in utero, the survival rates in the groups reviewed, open surgery, percutaneous intervention, and conservative management, were as follows: 4/6 cases (66.7%), 12/27 cases (44.4%), and 6/9 cases (66.7%). The median of gestational weeks at delivery in fetuses with cardiac failure was 29 weeks (26–35) in the open surgery group, 28 weeks (17–38) in the percutaneous intervention group, and 30 weeks (21–35) in the group that had no intervention.

4. Discussion

In this review, the data revealed 16 cases of open fetal surgery, 48 cases of percutaneous fetal intervention, and 93 cases without fetal intervention. Our data collection highlighted no significant difference in survival rate between the open surgery group and the percutaneous intervention group, with a total survival of 56.2% in open surgery cases and 45.8% in percutaneous intervention cases. In each group, the mean gestational age at delivery was significantly earlier in the babies who were submitted to an intrauterine procedure and died compared to those who were submitted to intra-uterine fetal surgery and survived.
SCT can be diagnosed in the prenatal period, usually by ultrasound examination during the second trimester, but the mortality rate of fetal SCTs with prenatal diagnosis is higher when compared to those diagnosed postnatally, probably because nowadays, those small SCTs may not be diagnosed prenatally [83,84]. Furthermore, fetal SCTs with hydrops or fetal cardiac failure are associated with worse outcomes, especially increased perinatal mortality rate. The perinatal mortality rate of fetal SCTs with hydrops or fetal cardiac failure is greater than 50%, which is higher than the mortality rate of fetal cases without them [19,35,83,85]. SCTs with highly vascularized tumors and rapid growth are associated with increased risk of progression to fetal hydrops or fetal cardiac failure, and, therefore, associated with increased risk of mortality. Another complication of large SCTs with increased vascularity is the increased risk of fetal anemia due to intra-tumoral hemorrhage, which can also progress to elevate cardiac outputs and fetal cardiac dysfunction [1,20].
If the fetus has hydrops or fetal cardiac failure, intrauterine fetal interventions are indicated with the objective of improving the perinatal survival rate [11,16,18,22,23,86]. In general, based on the literature, fetal interventions are performed in approximately 13% of fetal SCTs in order to improve prognoses when SCT is associated with fetal hydrops, or cardiac dysfunction [35]. The purpose of fetal intervention is to prevent progression to fetal hydrops, fetal cardiac failure, or the rapid growth of the tumor. Open fetal resection of the tumor and percutaneous fetal intervention (laser ablation, RFA, thermocoagulation, or embolization) are different techniques and methods used as fetal interventions for fetuses with SCTs [11,16,18,22,23,86]. So far, there has been no evidence that one option is better than the other regarding the objectives described above [11,33,34,86,87].
Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated which procedure could have better results. In this study, there was no significant difference in the survival rates considering different types of intrauterine fetal intervention, that is, 56.2% in open surgery cases and 45.8% in percutaneous intervention cases. Although open surgery tended to be chosen in cases deemed more severe, we found that the gestational weeks at delivery in more extensive surgery and percutaneous intervention cases were almost identical. In both procedures, the mean gestational age of delivery was earlier in non-survival cases than survival cases, even excluding fetal demise cases, regardless of the presence of the fetal hydrops, fetal cardiac failure, or polyhydramnios. Although it is difficult to determine the best method of fetal intervention based on this review, the management to prevent premature delivery after fetal intervention should be considered very important and more research should be focused on this subject.
On the other hand, in cases without fetal intervention, the gestational age at delivery was also significantly earlier in non-survival cases than in survival cases. The presence of polyhydramnios in non-survival cases was significantly more frequent than in those that survived after fetal intervention. This could suggest that we should closely monitor polyhydramnios to prevent premature delivery.
Our study did not aim to compare outcomes between patients submitted to fetal interventions and those with prenatal expectant management in fetuses with SCT, since fetal interventions are indicated for severe forms of SCT when hydrops or fetal cardiac dysfunction is present, while prenatal expectant management was performed in fetuses with SCT without those complications. In addition, there was no randomized controlled trial comparing these two groups (fetal interventions vs. non-fetal interventions) as some ethical questions may be considered. Our study, therefore, focused on comparing different methods of fetal intervention in fetuses with severe SCT (associated with hydrops and/or fetal cardiac dysfunction). In addition, it seems that the different methods of fetal intervention for severe SCT are chosen based on the surgeon’s experience. There are no data in the literature that provide possible indications for different fetal therapeutic options for severe SCTs.
An important strength of our review is that it highlights fetal outcomes when presenting with prevalent complications associated with SCT, such as fetal hydrops and/or fetal cardiac failure. In addition, this is the largest systematic review on this subject at the moment.
Our study has some limitations mainly regarding the heterogeneity of the study. Additionally, there was no randomized controlled trial or prospective study conducted comparing different techniques, especially with non-fetal intervention, since fetal sacrococcygeal tumors are quite rare. And the cases of good prognostic outcomes tend not to be reported, especially in cases without fetal intervention. Therefore, our study was not able to evaluate the effectiveness of fetal surgery (any type) compared to fetuses without fetal intervention. The literature lacks these types of studies. The literature compares outcomes with old studies that reported the natural history of SCTs with hydrops and/or cardiac failure. Furthermore, the extent of tumor resection, considerations based on pathologic diagnosis, and long-term outcomes including neurodevelopment or oncological prognoses, were not considered and have few data.
Therefore, it is necessary in the future to accumulate and study cases and consider which patients need fetal intervention and which patients are good candidates for open or percutaneous surgery. To this end, the focus should extend to long-term prognosis, including infants without fetal interventions.

5. Conclusions

As part of the group of rare diseases, sacrococcygeal teratomas can present with a myriad of consequences and complications in a developing fetus. Our review has highlighted the importance of identifying these conditions promptly. While further investigations of SCTs remains warranted, our data emphasize that there are different therapeutic options to treat in utero fetuses with SCT associated with hydrops and/or cardiac failure with similar outcomes. However, our systematic review and meta-analysis show that there is no significant difference in perinatal outcomes considering different types of intrauterine fetal intervention. In our opinion, since this is a rare condition, further large prospective multicenter database studies are warranted in order to investigate the impact of different types of intrauterine fetal surgeries for large SCTs with fetal hydrops or fetal cardiac dysfunction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.R. and G.T.; methodology, H.K. and R.R.; software, H.K.; validation, H.K. and R.R.; formal analysis, H.K., O.O.O., L.S. and R.R.; investigation, H.K. and R.R.; resources, H.K., O.O.O., L.S. and R.R.; data curation, H.K., O.O.O., L.S. and R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, H.K.; writing—review and editing, O.O.O., L.S. R.R. and G.T.; supervision, R.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cass, D.L. Fetal abdominal tumors and cysts. Transl. Pediatr. 2021, 10, 1530–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Marcu, M.L.; Bacalbaşa, N.; Candrea, E.; Stănică, C.D.; Massawi, T.; Chirilov, A.; Neacşu, A.; Pacu, I. Fetal sacrococcygeal immature teratoma—Report of two cases and review of the literature. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2022, 63, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Phi, J.H. Sacrococcygeal Teratoma: A Tumor at the Center of Embryogenesis. J. Korean Neurosurg. Soc. 2021, 64, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pauniaho, S.L.; Heikinheimo, O.; Vettenranta, K.; Salonen, J.; Stefanovic, V.; Ritvanen, A.; Rintala, R.; Heikinheimo, M. High prevalence of sacrococcygeal teratoma in Finland—A nationwide population-based study. Acta Paediatr. 2013, 102, e251–e256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Swamy, R.; Embleton, N.; Hale, J. Sacrococcygeal teratoma over two decades: Birth prevalence, prenatal diagnosis and clinical outcomes. Prenat. Diagn. 2008, 28, 1048–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yoon, H.M.; Byeon, S.-j.; Hwang, J.-Y.; Kim, J.R.; Jung, A.Y.; Lee, J.S.; Yoon, H.-K.; Cho, Y.A. Sacrococcygeal teratomas in newborns: A comprehensive review for the radiologists. Acta Radiol. 2018, 59, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rodriguez, M.A.; Cass, D.L.; Lazar, D.A.; Cassady, C.I.; Moise, K.J.; Johnson, A.; Mushin, O.P.; Hassan, S.F.; Belleza-Bascon, B.; Olutoye, O.O. Tumor volume to fetal weight ratio as an early prognostic classification for fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2011, 46, 1182–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Peiró, J.L.; Sbragia, L.; Scorletti, F.; Lim, F.Y.; Shaaban, A. Management of fetal teratomas. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2016, 32, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Peiro, J.L.; Sbragia, L.; Scorletti, F.; Lim, F.Y. Perinatal Management of Fetal Tumors. Curr. Pediatr. Rev. 2015, 11, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ruano, R.; da Silva, M.M.; Salustiano, E.M.; Kilby, M.D.; Tannuri, U.; Zugaib, M. Percutaneous laser ablation under ultrasound guidance for fetal hyperechogenic microcystic lung lesions with hydrops: A single center cohort and a literature review. Prenat. Diagn. 2012, 32, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Van Mieghem, T.; Al-Ibrahim, A.; Deprest, J.; Lewi, L.; Langer, J.C.; Baud, D.; O’Brien, K.; Beecroft, R.; Chaturvedi, R.; Jaeggi, E.; et al. Minimally invasive therapy for fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma: Case series and systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 43, 611–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Adzick, N.S.; Crombleholme, T.M.; Morgan, M.A.; Quinn, T.M. A rapidly growing fetal teratoma. Lancet 1997, 349, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Adzick, N.S.; Kitano, Y. Fetal surgery for lung lesions, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, and sacrococcygeal teratoma. Semin. Pediatr. Surg. 2003, 12, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Graf, J.L.; Housely, H.T.; Albanese, C.T.; Adzick, N.S.; Harrison, M.R. A surprising histological evolution of preterm sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1998, 33, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Graf, J.L.; Paek, B.W.; Albanese, C.T.; Farrell, J.A.; Kitterman, J.A.; Jennings, R.W.; Harrison, M.R. Successful resuscitation during fetal surgery. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2000, 35, 1388–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Flake, A.W.; Harrison, M.R.; Adzick, N.S.; Laberge, J.M.; Warsof, S.L. Fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1986, 21, 563–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Langer, J.C.; Harrison, M.R.; Schmidt, K.G.; Silverman, N.H.; Anderson, R.L.; Goldberg, J.D.; Filly, R.A.; Crombleholme, T.M.; Longaker, M.T.; Golbus, M.S. Fetal hydrops and death from sacrococcygeal teratoma: Rationale for fetal surgery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1989, 160, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Westerburg, B.; Feldstein, V.A.; Sandberg, P.L.; Lopoo, J.B.; Harrison, M.R.; Albanese, C.T. Sonographic prognostic factors in fetuses with sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2000, 35, 322–325, discussion 325–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cass, D.L.; Olutoye, O.O.; Ayres, N.A.; Moise, K.J., Jr.; Altman, C.A.; Johnson, A.; Cassady, C.I.; Lazar, D.A.; Lee, T.C.; Lantin, M.R. Defining hydrops and indications for open fetal surgery for fetuses with lung masses and vascular tumors. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2012, 47, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hecher, K.; Hackelöer, B.J. Intrauterine endoscopic laser surgery for fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma. Lancet 1996, 347, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Paek, B.W.; Jennings, R.W.; Harrison, M.R.; Filly, R.A.; Tacy, T.A.; Farmer, D.L.; Albanese, C.T. Radiofrequency ablation of human fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001, 184, 503–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lam, Y.H.; Tang, M.H.; Shek, T.W. Thermocoagulation of fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma. Prenat. Diagn. 2002, 22, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ibrahim, D.; Ho, E.; Scherl, S.A.; Sullivan, C.M. Newborn with an open posterior hip dislocation and sciatic nerve injury after intrauterine radiofrequency ablation of a sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2003, 38, 248–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Perrotin, F.; Herbreteau, D.; Machet, M.; Potin, J.; Lardy, H.; Arbeille, P. OP06. 20: In utero Doppler ultrasound-guided embolization for the treatment of a large, vascular sacrococcygeal teratoma causing fetal hydrops. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 28, 458–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Benachi, A.; Durin, L.; Vasseur Maurer, S.; Aubry, M.C.; Parat, S.; Herlicoviez, M.; Nihoul-Fekete, C.; Dumez, Y.; Dommergues, M. Prenatally diagnosed sacrococcygeal teratoma: A prognostic classification. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2006, 41, 1517–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Makin, E.C.; Hyett, J.; Ade-Ajayi, N.; Patel, S.; Nicolaides, K.; Davenport, M. Outcome of antenatally diagnosed sacrococcygeal teratomas: Single-center experience (1993–2004). J. Pediatr. Surg. 2006, 41, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grethel, E.J.; Wagner, A.J.; Clifton, M.S.; Cortes, R.A.; Farmer, D.L.; Harrison, M.R.; Nobuhara, K.K.; Lee, H. Fetal intervention for mass lesions and hydrops improves outcome: A 15-year experience. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2007, 42, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ruano, R.; Duarte, S.; Zugaib, M. Percutaneous laser ablation of sacrococcygeal teratoma in a hydropic fetus with severe heart failure--too late for a surgical procedure? Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2009, 25, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ding, J.; Chen, Q.; Stone, P. Percutaneous laser photocoagulation of tumour vessels for the treatment of a rapidly growing sacrococcygeal teratoma in an extremely premature fetus. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010, 23, 1516–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lee, M.Y.; Won, H.S.; Hyun, M.K.; Lee, H.Y.; Shim, J.Y.; Lee, P.R.; Kim, A. Perinatal outcome of sacrococcygeal teratoma. Prenat. Diagn. 2011, 31, 1217–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Usui, N.; Kitano, Y.; Sago, H.; Kanamori, Y.; Yoneda, A.; Nakamura, T.; Nosaka, S.; Saito, M.; Taguchi, T. Outcomes of prenatally diagnosed sacrococcygeal teratomas: The results of a Japanese nationwide survey. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2012, 47, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sananes, N.; Javadian, P.; Schwach Werneck Britto, I.; Meyer, N.; Koch, A.; Gaudineau, A.; Favre, R.; Ruano, R. Technical aspects and effectiveness of percutaneous fetal therapies for large sacrococcygeal teratomas: Cohort study and literature review. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 47, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Litwińska, M.; Litwińska, E.; Janiak, K.; Piaseczna-Piotrowska, A.; Szaflik, K. Percutaneous Intratumor Laser Ablation for Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2020, 47, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. van Heurn, L.J.; Coumans, A.B.C.; Derikx, J.P.M.; Bekker, M.N.; Bilardo, K.M.; Duin, L.K.; Knapen, M.; Pajkrt, E.; Sikkel, E.; van Heurn, L.W.E.; et al. Factors associated with poor outcome in fetuses prenatally diagnosed with sacrococcygeal teratoma. Prenat. Diagn. 2021, 41, 1430–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sosa, C.S.; Amarilla, L.; Mascareno, P.; Rosas, G.; Ricardo, A.; Sosa, P.S. VP52. 02: Fetal laser surgery in giant sacrococcygeal teratoma. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2021, 58, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rossi, U.G.; Cariati, M.; Tomà, P. Giant sacrococcygeal teratoma embolization. Indian. J. Radiol. Imaging 2013, 23, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pessel, C.; Fratto, V.; Laifer-Narin, S.; Simpson, L.L.; Nhan-Chang, C.L. Going out on a limb for a difficult diagnosis: A case report. Clin. Imaging 2014, 38, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Adekola, H.; Mody, S.; Bronshtein, E.; Puder, K.; Abramowicz, J.S. The clinical relevance of fetal MRI in the diagnosis of Type IV cystic sacrococcygeal teratoma—A review. Fetal Pediatr. Pathol. 2015, 34, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Atis, A.; Kaya, B.; Acar, D.; Polat, I.; Gezdirici, A.; Gedikbasi, A. A Huge Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma with a Vascular Disruption Sequence. Fetal Pediatr. Pathol. 2015, 34, 212–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Arisoy, R.; Erdogdu, E.; Kumru, P.; Demirci, O.; Ergin, N.; Pekin, O.; Sahinoglu, Z.; Tugrul, A.S.; Sancak, S.; Çetiner, H.; et al. Prenatal diagnosis and outcomes of fetal teratomas. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2016, 44, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Krekora, M.; Zych-Krekora, K.; Blitek, M.; Kęsiak, M.; Piaseczna-Piotrowska, A.; Łukaszek, S.; Krasomski, G.; Słodki, M.; Szaflik, K.; Respondek-Liberska, M. Difficulties in prenatal diagnosis of tumour in the fetal sacrococcygeal area. Ultrasound 2016, 24, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sarbu, I.; Socolov, D.; Socolov, R.; Miron, I.; Trandafirescu, M.; Diaconescu, S.; Ciongradi, C.I. Hydrocephalus secondary to chemotherapy in a case of prenatally diagnosed giant immature grade 3 sacrococcygeal teratoma: A case report and literature review. Medicine 2016, 95, e5244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Firszt, O.P.; Myga-Porosiło, J.; Pośpieszny, K.; Golus, T.; Trzeszkowska-Rotkegel, S.; Głowacki, J.; Sraga, W.; Kluczewska, E. Radiological features of sacrococcygeal teratomas in fetal magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography—A case report. Pol. J. Radiol. 2018, 83, e19–e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Perrone, E.E.; Jarboe, M.D.; Maher, C.O.; Berman, D.R.; Ladino-Torres, M.; Kreutzman, J.; Treadwell, M.C.; Mychaliska, G.B. Early Delivery of Sacrococcygeal Teratoma with Intraspinal Extension. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2018, 43, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Stavropoulou, D.; Hentschel, R.; Rädecke, J.; Kunze, M.; Niemeyer, C.; Uhl, M.; Grohmann, J. Preoperative selective embolization with vascular coiling of giant sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2019, 12, 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Baró, A.M.; Perez, S.P.; Costa, M.M.; Heredia, C.L.; Azuara, L.S.; Juanos, J.L.; Lapiedra, M.Z. Sacrococcygeal teratoma with preterm delivery: A case report. J. Med. Case Rep. 2020, 14, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Guitart, J.; Teixidor, M.; Brun, N.; López, S.; Criado, E.; Romero, N. Preoperative giant sacrococcygeal teratoma embolization in a newborn—A case report and a review. Cir. Pediatr. 2020, 33, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  49. Hu, Q.; Yan, Y.; Liao, H.; Liu, H.; Yu, H.; Zhao, F. Sacrococcygeal teratoma in one twin: A case report and literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020, 20, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Özsürmeli, M.; Büyükkurt, S.; Sucu, M.; Arslan, E.; Mısırlıoğlu, S.; Akçabay, Ç.; Kayapınar, M.; Demir, S.C.; Evrüke, İ.C. Evaluation of prenatally diagnosed fetal sacrococcygeal teratomas: A case series of seventeen pregnancies from South-central Turkey. Turk. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 17, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ulm, B.; Muin, D.; Scharrer, A.; Prayer, D.; Dovjak, G.; Kasprian, G. Prenatal ultrasound and magnetic resonance evaluation and fetal outcome in high-risk fetal tumors: A retrospective single-center cohort study over 20 years. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020, 99, 1534–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Zheng, X.Q.; Yan, J.Y.; Xu, R.L.; Wang, X.C.; Chen, X.; Huang, K.H. A Clinical Analysis of the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratomas. Cancer Manag. Res. 2020, 12, 13185–13193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Green, P.A.; Hyde, L.; Corbett, H.J.; Losty, P.D. Posterior urethral valves masquerading as neuropathic bladder following sacrococcygeal teratoma resection. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2021, 103, e114–e115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Serratrice, N.; Faure, A.; de Paula, A.M.; Girard, N.; André, N.; Scavarda, D. Description of a giant hypothalamic hamartoma associated with an immature ruptured giant sacrococcygeal teratoma: A case report. Child’s Nerv. Syst. 2021, 37, 2363–2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ding, Y.; Yang, M.; Lv, M.; Jiang, Y.; Dong, T.; Zhao, B.; Luo, Q. The ex-utero intrapartum treatment (EXIT) strategy for fetal giant sacrococcygeal teratoma with cardiac insufficiency: A case report and review of the literature. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1035058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dey, A.; Wyrebek, R.; Torres, L.; Escoto, D.; Shakeel, F.; Mayer, J. Tumor lysis syndrome in premature infant prompting early resection of a large sacrococcygeal teratoma: A case report. BMC Pediatr. 2023, 23, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Spingler, T.; Wiechers, C.; Lieber, J.; Kagan, K.O. Exceptionally early diagnosis of fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma in first trimester ultrasound. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2023, 308, 301–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zvizdic, Z.; Jonuzi, A.; Milisic, E.; Hadzimehmedagic, A.; Vranic, S. A Long-Term Outcome of the Patients with Sacrococcygeal Teratoma: A Bosnian Cohort. Turk. Arch. Pediatr. 2023, 58, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Girwalkar-Bagle, A.; Thatte, W.; Gulia, P. Sacrococcygeal teratoma: A case report and review of literature. Anaesth. Pain. Intensiv. Care 2019, 449–451. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bista, A.; Ghimire, S.; Gaire, N.S.; Bataju, P.; Mishra, D. Giant Sacrococcygeal Teratoma in a Neonate: A Case Report. J. Nepal Med. Assoc. 2023, 61, 675–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Farris, A.; Royek, A.; Dorsey, K. Maternal Mirror Syndrome as a Consequence of Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. South Atlantic Division Research Day. 2023. Available online: https://scholarlycommons.hcahealthcare.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=southatlantic2023 (accessed on 23 February 2024).
  62. Stout Jr, R.W.; Burgwardt, N.M.; Willis, L.; Eubanks III, J.W. In Utero Autoamputation of a Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma: A case report. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2023, 96, 102688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Balakrishnan, P.; Babu, T.A. Mature teratoma presenting as presacrococcygeal cystic mass in a neonate: A rare case report. Alex. J. Pediatr. 2023, 36, 66–68. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tartaglia, S.; Salvatori, M.; Larciprete, G.; Mappa, I.; Rizzo, G. EP31. 11: Time to diagnosis type IV sacrococcygeal teratoma: A case report and review of literature. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 60, 222–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Saha, L.; Wahbi, O.H.; Ramos, E.A.; Abozenah, Y.; Ghorabah, M.; Corbally, M. Case Report of a Rapidly Growing Sacrococcygeal Teratoma: A Planned Preterm Cesarean Delivery May Improve Fetal Outcome. J. Bahrain Med. Soc. 2022, 34, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tao, H.; Wu, J.; Zhai, J.; Zhang, B.; Pang, L.; Liu, M. A fetal case of a large sacrococcygeal teratoma: A case report. Med. Case Rep. Study Protoc. 2022, 3, e0242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vedmedovska, N.; Bokucava, D.; Lisovaja, I. EP24. 19: Fetal sacral teratoma from the first trimester to birth: Differential diagnosis, prognosis and outcome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 60, 194–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Davidson, J.; Head, T.; Weems, M.; Jones, J.; Weatherall, Y. Emergent exchange transfusion during surgical resection of sacrococcygeal teratoma in a neonate. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2022, 84, 102392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Derwa, S.; Ghys, I.; Vervloessem, D.; Leyman, P.; Vanderlinden, K.; Vercauteren, C.; De Backer, T.; Heyman, S. New challenges in treating sacrococcygeal teratomas in the COVID-19 pandemic: A case report. In Proceedings of the Belgian Surgical Week 2022, Oostende, Belgium, 5–7 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  70. Imsirija-Galijasevic, N.; Imsirija-Idrizbegovic, L.; Zvizdic, Z.; Hodzic, A.V.; Galijasevic, N. SACROCOCCYGEAL TERATOMA: DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT-CASE REPORT. Acta Medica Salin. 2022, 52, 14. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mahdi, A.; Jauniaux, E.; Mahdi, H. EP28. 07: Fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma with severe hemorrhage and maternal mirror syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 60, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Maneira-Sousa, P.; Rocha, G.; Soares, P.; Arnet, V.; Guimarães, S.; Fragoso, A.C.; Ramalho, C.; Costa, E.; Guimarães, H. Massive sacrococcygeal teratoma in a preterm infant. Clin. Case Rep. 2021, 9, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pérez, D.H.; Rodriguez, R.G.; Garcia-Delgado, R.; Delgado, T.B.; Acosta, A.A.; Gonzalez, J.P.; Gonzalez, J.S.; Cárdenes, I.O.; Alvarado, M.D.L.; Castellano, M.M. VP13. 19: Sacrococcygeal teratoma. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 56, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Casather, D. VP04. 18: Diagnosis of fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma at 13 weeks of gestation: A case report. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 56, 72. [Google Scholar]
  75. Savitri, Q.M.; Prihartono, S.; Harahap, A. Giant sacrococcygeal teratoma in newborn: A rare case. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2019, 47, 101223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Meshram, R.M.; Nikila, R.; Nagdive, N. Giant sacrococcygeal teratoma in neonate: A case report and review of literature. Indian. J. Med. Paediatr. Oncol. 2019, 40, 573–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Al Riyami, N. P05. 01: A case of sacrococcygeal teratoma: Management and outcome. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 54, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sancho, J.; Abarca, L.; Cabezas, E.; Lazaro, J. EP17. 25: Giant sacrococcygeal teratoma: Early ultrasound detection and bad prognostic ecographic signs. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 54, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Molina Vital, R.; de Santiago Valenzuela, J.M.; de Lira Barraza, R.C. Sacrococcygeal teratoma: Case report. Medwave 2015, 15, e6137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Kennedy, A.; Woodward, P.; Byrne, J. OP 27.09: Prenatal diagnosis of sacrococcygeal teratoma (SCT) rupture. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 44, 150–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ozler, S.; Oztas, E.; Ersoy, A.; Caglar, A.; Danisman, N. A Case of Sacrococcygeal Teratoma. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/afac/7e88840c4868ddd5039e0ecfb01c8c8d22f4.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2024).
  82. Gangadharan, M.; Panda, S.; Almond, P.S.; Agrawal, V.; Bhandari, A.; Koska, A.J. Management of preterm giant sacrococcygeal teratoma (GSCT) with an excellent outcome. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2014, 2014, rju132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Bond, S.J.; Harrison, M.R.; Schmidt, K.G.; Silverman, N.H.; Flake, A.W.; Slotnick, R.N.; Anderson, R.L.; Warsof, S.L.; Dyson, D.C. Death due to high-output cardiac failure in fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1990, 25, 1287–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. van Heurn, L.J.; Coumans, A.; Haak, M.C.; van der Kaaij, A.; van Heurn, L.W.E.; Pajkrt, E.; Derikx, J.P.M. Prognostic accuracy of factors associated with poor outcome in prenatally diagnosed sacrococcygeal teratoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prenat. Diagn. 2023, 43, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Brace, V.; Grant, S.R.; Brackley, K.J.; Kilby, M.D.; Whittle, M.J. Prenatal diagnosis and outcome in sacrococcygeal teratomas: A review of cases between 1992 and 1998. Prenat. Diagn. 2000, 20, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Menchaca, A.D.; Olutoye, O.O.; Cass, D.L.; Marwan, A.I. Percutaneous Versus Open Fetal Surgical Intervention for Sacrococcygeal Teratomas: Is Less Really More? Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2023, 50, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Baumgarten, H.D.; Gebb, J.S.; Khalek, N.; Moldenhauer, J.S.; Johnson, M.P.; Peranteau, W.H.; Hedrick, H.L.; Adzick, N.S.; Flake, A.W. Preemptive Delivery and Immediate Resection for Fetuses with High-Risk Sacrococcygeal Teratomas. Fetal Diagn. Ther. 2019, 45, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 02649 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the study selection. * The search was conducted using the following terms: “sacrococcygeal teratoma” AND (“fetal intervention” OR “fetal surgery” OR “open surgery” OR “in utero treatment” OR “fetal therapy” OR “RFA” OR “laser ablation” OR “ablation” OR “coagulation” OR “thermocoagulation” OR “radiofrequency” OR “embolization” OR “coiling” OR “sclerosis” OR “alcohol”). Furthermore, we searched for cases without fetal intervention using the term “fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma” from 2014 to 15 September 2023. ** We excluded because of the following reasons: (1) target diseases are different, (2) not in the target period, (3) no detailed data, (4) languages other than English.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of the study selection. * The search was conducted using the following terms: “sacrococcygeal teratoma” AND (“fetal intervention” OR “fetal surgery” OR “open surgery” OR “in utero treatment” OR “fetal therapy” OR “RFA” OR “laser ablation” OR “ablation” OR “coagulation” OR “thermocoagulation” OR “radiofrequency” OR “embolization” OR “coiling” OR “sclerosis” OR “alcohol”). Furthermore, we searched for cases without fetal intervention using the term “fetal sacrococcygeal teratoma” from 2014 to 15 September 2023. ** We excluded because of the following reasons: (1) target diseases are different, (2) not in the target period, (3) no detailed data, (4) languages other than English.
Jcm 13 02649 g001
Table 1. Characteristics of all cases.
Table 1. Characteristics of all cases.
Open Surgery
(OS) n = 16		Percutaneous Intervention (PI) n = 48p-ValueWithout Intervention
(NI) n = 93
Survival cases9 (56.2%)22 (45.8%)0.64566 (71.0%)
Gestational age at delivery (weeks)28.0 (21–35)28.5 (17–38)0.86335.0 (19–40)
Gestational age at intervention (weeks)24.0 (21–27)22.0 (17–21)0.061N/A
Tumor size (cm3)481 (161–936)130 (10–1932)0.044442.7(1.4–8181.2)
Fetal hydrops (n = 59)14/16 (87.5%)15/43 (34.9%)<0.0018/76 (10.5%)
Fetal cardiac failure (n = 40)6/7 (85.7%)27/33 (81.8%)1.0009/75 (12.0%)
Data are presented as medians (ranges) or numbers (%).
Table 2. Summary of cases of SCT who underwent open surgery.
Table 2. Summary of cases of SCT who underwent open surgery.
Ref.NGW at Diagnosis (Weeks)Tumor Size (cm3)HydropsHeart FailurePolyhydramniosGW at
Fetal Intervention
(Weeks)		Fetal TransfusionGW at
Delivery (Weeks)		Indication of Preterm DeliveryOutcome
Adzick (1997) [13,14]120350yesnoyes26no29Preterm laboralive
3N/A670yesyesyes23yes27Preterm labor, pPROMNND
N/A341yesyesyes21yes31Preterm labor, pPROMalive
N/A590noyesyes25no27Preterm labor, pPROMalive
Graf (1998, 2000) [13,15,16,17,18]3N/AN/AyesN/AN/A24no26 NND
N/AN/AyesN/AN/A27no28 NND
N/AN/AyesN/AN/A23yes28Preterm laboralive
Westerburg (2000) [19]718372yesN/AnoN/AN/A34 not alive
17376yesN/AyesN/AN/A21 not alive
19936yesN/AyesN/AN/A26 not alive
21900yesN/AnoN/AN/A25 not alive (mirror syndrome)
20195yesN/AyesN/AN/A28 alive
25161yesN/AnoN/AN/A30 alive
17335yesN/AnoN/AN/A27 alive
Cass (2021) [1,20]2N/AN/AyesyesN/A23N/A35 alive
N/AN/AyesyesN/AN/AN/A35 alive
GW, gestational weeks; pPROM, preterm premature rupture of membranes; NND, neonatal death.
Table 3. Summary of cases of SCT who underwent percutaneous intervention.
Table 3. Summary of cases of SCT who underwent percutaneous intervention.
Ref.NGW at Diagnosis (Weeks)Tumor Size (cm3)HydropsHeart FailurePolyhydramniosGW at Fetal Intervention (Weeks)Type of InterventionFetal TransfusionGW at Delivery (Weeks)Indication of Preterm DeliveryOutcome
Hecher (1996) [21]11662nonoyes20laser vascular ablationyes37 alive
Paek (2001) [22]420381yesyesno20RFA (entire tumor)noN/A IUFD
21330yesyesno21RFA (large vessels)no28Hydropsalive
19118noyesno19RFA (large vessels)no31pPROM, NRFSalive
18309no (yes after RFA)yesyes22RFA (large vessels)yes25 TOP
Lam (2002) [23]113141noyesyes18Thermocoagulationno24 IUFD
Ibrahim (2003) [24]118118 20RFAno32Placenta abruptionalive
Perrotin (2005) [25]113N/Ayesyesyes27Alcohol sclerosisyes29pPROMalive
Benachi (2006) [26]1N/A>10 cmN/AN/AN/AN/ACoilingno24 IUFD
Makin (2006) [27]7N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/ALaser vascular ablationno32 alive
N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/ALaser vascular ablationno24 IUFD
N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/ALaser vascular ablationno32 IUFD
N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/ALaser vascular ablationno28 NND
N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/AAlcohol sclerosisno27 IUFD
N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/AAlcohol sclerosisno32 NND
N/AN/AyesN/AN/AN/AAlcohol sclerosisno27 NND
Grethel (2007) [28]4N/AN/AnoN/AN/AN/ARFAN/AN/A alive
N/AN/AnoN/AN/AN/ARFAN/AN/A alive
N/AN/AnoN/AN/AN/ARFAN/AN/A NND
N/AN/AnoN/AN/AN/ARFAN/AN/A NND
Ruano (2009) [29]1231030yesyesyes24Laser ablationnoN/A IUFD
Ding (2010) [30]11917noyesyes22Laser vascular ablationno29Antepartum hemorrhage from previaalive
Lee (2011) [31]622113noyes(50%)25RFA(1/6)33Preterm laboralive
20119nono23RFA with cyst aspiration26pPROMalive
1611nono20,22RFA27pPROMNND
2221noyes31RFA35pPROMalive
29278nono31RFA35Preterm laboralive
22258nono23,30RFA with T-A shunt35Preterm laboralive
Usui (2012) [32]1N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ARFAnoN/A alive
Van Mieghem (2014) [11]526817noyesyes26Laser ablation (large superficial vessels)no26NRFS (during laser)NND
21879noyesyes22RFAyes22 IUFD (during RFA)
261327noyesyes26RFAno27Preterm laboralive
17114noyesno17Laser + coilingno17 IUFD
261191noyesno26Laser + coilingyes28 alive
Sananes (2015) [33]521(1.93 cm3/g)yes yes24Laser ablation (interstitial)noN/A IUFD
N/A(1.89 cm3/g)yesyesyes21Laser ablationno23HELLPNND
N/A(2.37 cm3/g)yesnoyes22Laser ablationno32Preterm laboralive
N/A980noyesyes21Laser ablation21,24,2834pPROM, preterm laboralive
N/A452yesyesyes23Alcohol sclerosis2325Mirror syndromeNND
Litwinska(2018) [34]7N/A62noyesno20Laser ablationno38 alive
N/A58noyesno21,24Laser ablationno29Preterm laboralive
N/A92noyesno23,27Laser ablationno30Preterm laboralive
N/A74noyesno20,22Laser ablationno24 IUFD
N/A54noyesno19,20Laser ablationno31Preterm laborNND
N/A39noyesno19Laser ablationno29pPROMNND
N/A589noyesyes23,24Laser ablationno25Mirror syndromeNND
Van Heurn (2021) [35]1211932N/AyesN/A25Interstitial laser coagulation (not complete)no27 NND
Sosa (2021) [36]121N/AN/AyesN/A24,27,30Laser sclerosisN/A34pPROM, preterm laborNND
GW, gestational weeks; RFA, Radio Frequency Ablation; IUFD, Intrauterine Fetal Death; pPROM, preterm premature rupture of membranes; NRFS, non-reassuring fetal status; TOP, termination of pregnancy; HELLP, hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; NND, neonatal death.
Table 4. The data on open surgery cases.
Table 4. The data on open surgery cases.
Survival CasesNon-Survival Casesp
Tumor size (cm3)338 (161–590)641.5 (372–936)0.026
Fetal hydrops7/9 (77.8%)7/7 (100%)0.475
Fetal cardiac failure4/5 (80%)2/2 (100%)1.000
Polyhydramnios4/6 (66.7%)4/6 (66.7%)1.000
Gestational age in weeks at fetal intervention24 (21–26)24 (23–27)0.692
Gestational age in weeks at delivery29 (27–35)26 (21–34)0.033
Data are presented as medians (ranges) or numbers (%).
Table 5. The data on percutaneous intervention cases.
Table 5. The data on percutaneous intervention cases.
Survival CasesNon-Survival Casesp
Tumor size (cm3)118 (10–1327)345 (11–1932)0.371
Fetal hydrops4/20 (20%)11/23 (47.8%)0.107
Fetal cardiac failure12/17 (70.6%)15/16 (93.8%)0.175
Polyhydramnios6/12 (50%)9/14 (64.3%)0.692
Gestational age in weeks at fetal intervention22.5 (19–31)22.0 (17–26)0.195
Gestational age in weeks at delivery32 (26–38)26 (17–34)<0.001
Without fetal demise (n = 36)32 (26–38)27 (23–34)0.006
Data are presented as medians (ranges) or numbers (%).
Table 6. The data on cases without fetal intervention.
Table 6. The data on cases without fetal intervention.
Survival CasesNon-Survival Casesp
Tumor size (cm3)314.2 (1.4–8181.2)467.2 (20.9–4188.8)0.376
Fetal hydrops5/63 (7.9%)3/12 (25%)0.111
Fetal cardiac failure6/62 (9.7%)3/12 (25%)0.156
Polyhydramnios15/59 (25.4%)10/13 (76.9%)<0.001
Type 1 or 249/63 (14.3%)19/21 (90.5%)0.336
Gestational age at delivery37 (27–40)28 (19–36)<0.001
Without fetal demise (n = 87)27 (27–40)29 (21–36)<0.001
Data are presented as medians (ranges) or numbers (%).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Konno, H.; Okpaise, O.O.; Sbragia, L.; Tonni, G.; Ruano, R. Perinatal Outcomes of Intrauterine Interventions for Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma Based on Different Surgical Techniques—A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092649

AMA Style

Konno H, Okpaise OO, Sbragia L, Tonni G, Ruano R. Perinatal Outcomes of Intrauterine Interventions for Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma Based on Different Surgical Techniques—A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(9):2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092649

Chicago/Turabian Style

Konno, Hiroko, Oluwateniayo O. Okpaise, Lourenço Sbragia, Gabriele Tonni, and Rodrigo Ruano. 2024. "Perinatal Outcomes of Intrauterine Interventions for Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma Based on Different Surgical Techniques—A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 9: 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092649

APA Style

Konno, H., Okpaise, O. O., Sbragia, L., Tonni, G., & Ruano, R. (2024). Perinatal Outcomes of Intrauterine Interventions for Fetal Sacrococcygeal Teratoma Based on Different Surgical Techniques—A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(9), 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092649

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop