Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2013 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3

İkinci trimester genetik amniyosentezi: bir maternal - fetal tıp ünitesinin beş yıllık deneyimi

Second trimester genetic amniocentesis: five- year experience of a maternal- fetal medicine unit

Pages
147–152
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Prenatal ul- trasonography for the soft markers of chromosomal aneuploidy in association with the maternal serum biochemical screening tests should be evaluated during the decision process for amniocentesis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTİVE: The objective of this study is to identify the annual variations amniocentesis indications such as change in maternal age, cytogenetic results, and other indications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: This study was designed as a retrospective analysis of amniocentesis results of the 1667 pregnant patients between January 2007 and December 2012 in the Süleymaniye Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Prenatal ul- trasonography for the soft markers of chromosomal aneuploidy in association with the maternal serum biochemical screening tests should be evaluated during the decision process for amniocentesis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTİVE: The objective of this study is to identify the annual variations amniocentesis indications such as change in maternal age, cytogenetic results, and other indications. Another outcome is the in- vestigation of the relationship between indications for amniocentesis and the distribution of chromoso- mal abnormalities. STUDY DESIGN: This study was designed as a retrospective analysis of amniocentesis results of the 1667 pregnant patients between January 2007 and December 2012 in the Süleymaniye Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital. The karyotype results, indications for intervention and com- plications during procedure were reported. RESULTS: Total chromosome abnormalities were detected in 101 cases out of 1667 patients which cor- respond to a 6.1% of the total results. Distribution of the chromosomal abnormality detection rate with respect to the amniocentesis indication was 4.2%; in the abnormal first trimester screening tests group; 5.3% in the abnormal second trimester maternal serum screening group, 18.7% in the fetal malforma- tions in previous pregnancy group, and 7.1%. in the abnormal ultrasound findings group. CONCLUSION: Amniocentesis is the most common invasive procedure for prenatal diagnosis. Although the advanced maternal age is still an important indication, there has been significant development of both new markers and technology making this indication for amniocentesis questionable. Prenatal ul- trasonography for the soft markers of chromosomal aneuploidy in association with the maternal serum biochemical screening tests should be evaluated during the decision process for amniocentesis.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı; amniyosentez endikasyonları- nın yıllara göre değişimini ve farklı endikasyonlarla yapılan ge- netik amniyosentezlerin kromozom anomalisi yakalama oranı- nın belirlenmesidir. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Çalışma retrospektif olarak dizayn edil- miş olup, Ocak 2007- Aralık 2012 tarihleri arasInda Süleyma- niye Doğumevi Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi'nde yapılan 1667 ikinci trimester genetik amniyosentezleri incelenmiştir. Genetik amniyosentez endikasyonları ve karyotip sonuçları ka- yıt altına alınmıştır. BULGULAR: Belirtilen tarihler arasındaki 1667 ikinci trimester genetik amniyosentezinin 101'inde (%6,1) kromozom anomali- si tespit edildi. Farklı amniyosentez endikasyonları incelendi- ğinde kromozom anomalisi yakalama oranları şu şekilde bu- lundu; anormal ultrason bulguları olanlarda %7,1, anormal bi- rinci trimester tarama testi sonucu olanlarda %4,2, anormal ikinci trimester maternal serum belirteçleri olanlarda %5,3 ve önceki gebeliğinde fetal malformasyon öyküsü olanlarda %18,7. SONUÇ: Genetik amniyosentez invaziv prenatal tanıda en çok uygulanan prosedürdür. Geçmiş yıllarda en önemli amniyo- sentez endikasyonları arasında sayılan ileri anne yaşı, günü- müzde yerini farklı endikasyonlara bırakmıştır. Minör belirteçle- rin gelişen prenatal ultrasonografi ile belirlenebilmesi ile birlik- te maternal serum belirteçlerinin kombinasyonu sonrasında amniyosentez endikasyonu koyulması uygun olacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇETİN, O., VERİT, F. F. A., ZEBİTAY, A. G., DEREGÖZÜ, A., AYDOĞAN, B., KESKİN, S., YÜCEL, O. (2013). İkinci trimester genetik amniyosentezi: bir maternal - fetal tıp ünitesinin beş yıllık deneyimi. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3, 147–152. https://ajindex.com/articles/209797

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Shatz F. Eine besondere art von ein seitiger polyhydamnic mit anderseitiger oligohydramnie bei zwillingen. Arch Gynaekol 1982;19:329-37
  2. Fuchs F, Riis P. Antenatal sex determination. Nature 1956; 177 (4503):330-4
  3. Steele MW, Breg WR. Chromosome analyses of human fluid cells. Lancet 1966;1 (7434):383-5
  4. Jacobsen CB, Barter RH. Intrauterine diagnosis and man- agement of genetic defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967 Nov 15;99 (6):796-807
  5. Thorp JA, Helfgott AW, King AA, Minyard AN. Maternal death after second trimester genetic amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 2005 May (5 Pt 2);105:1213-5
  6. Lambl D. Ein seltener Fall von Hydramnios. Zentrablatt Gynaekologie 1881;5:329
  7. Nadler HL, Gerbie AB. Role of amniocentesis in in- trauterine detection genetic disorders. N England J Med 1970;12;282 (11):596-9
  8. Tongsong T. Wanapirak C, Sirivatanapa P, Piyamongkol W, Sirichotiyakul S, Yampochai A. Amniocentesis related fetal loss: a cohort study. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:64-7
  9. Han SH, An JW, Jeong GY, Yoon HR, Lee A, Yang YH, Lee KP, Lee KR. Clinical and cytogenetic findings on 31,615 mid- trimester amniocenteses. Korean J Lab Med 2008;28:378-85
  10. Hsieh FJ, Lo TM, Tseng LH, Chang LS, Pan MF, Chuang SM, Chen HY. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis in amnio- centesis. J Formosa Med Assoc 1992;91:276-82
  11. Tseng JJ, Chou MM, Lo FC, Lai HY, Chen MH. Detection of chromosome aberration in the second trimester using genetic amniocentesis: experince during 1995-2004. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2006;45:39-41
  12. Kim SK, Kim IK, Kim CK, Yang YH, Park TK. The effect of genetic counseling on performance of prenatal cytoge- netic diagnosis. Yonsei Med J 1989;30:16-22
  13. Bell JA, Pearn JH, Smith A. Prenatal cytogenetic diagno- sis. Amniotic cell culture versus chorionic villus sampling. Med J Aust 1987;146:27-9
  14. Karaoguz MY, Bal F, Yakut T, Ercelen NO, Ergun MA, Gokcen AB, Biri AA, Kimya Y, Urman B, Gultomruk M, Egeli U, Menevse S. Cytogenetic results of amniocentesis materials: incidence of Turkish collaborative study. Genet Couns 2006;17:219-30
  15. Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA, Nichimson DJ, Weinbaum PJ. Antenatal evaluation and management of ultrasono- graphically detected fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:640-60
  16. Yang YH, Kwon HK, Kim SK, Park YW, Cho JS, Kim IK. Prenatal genetic diagnosis in 2000 amniocentesis. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 1999;42:65-7
  17. Chang YW, Chang CM, Sung PL, Yang MJ, Li WH, Li HY, Chen LC, Cheng LY, Lai YL, Cheng YY, Chang WH, Chao