Journals / Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology / 2017 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

Summary of 2185 prenatal invasive procedures in a single center: A retrospective analysis

İnvaziv prenatal tanı yöntemleri uygulanan tek merkezli 2185 olgunun retrospektif analizi

Pages
114–120
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)

There were 2 pregnancy losses due to the invasive procedure (only in amniocentesis).Conclusion: The ideal approach to pregnancies with a detected chromosomal abnormality should be tailored according to the individual choice of the couples regarding whether they decide for or against a child with a known chromosomal abnormality.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To determine the frequency, indications, and outcomes of diagnostic invasive prenatal procedures (DIPP) performed in a university hospital.Materials and Methods: This retrospective, observational study included 2185 cases of DIPP (chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis, and cordocentesis) performed at the department of obstetrics and gynecology of a university hospital between 2010 and 2016.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We included all DIPP cases performed between 11 and 24 weeks of gestation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There were 2 pregnancy losses due to the invasive procedure (only in amniocentesis).Conclusion: The ideal approach to pregnancies with a detected chromosomal abnormality should be tailored according to the individual choice of the couples regarding whether they decide for or against a child with a known chromosomal abnormality.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To determine the frequency, indications, and outcomes of diagnostic invasive prenatal procedures (DIPP) performed in a university hospital.Materials and Methods: This retrospective, observational study included 2185 cases of DIPP (chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis, and cordocentesis) performed at the department of obstetrics and gynecology of a university hospital between 2010 and 2016. We included all DIPP cases performed between 11 and 24 weeks of gestation. We compared the different types of DIPP performed in our hospital.Results: Two thousand one hundred eighty-five procedures were performed (1853 amniocenteses, 326 chorionic villus sampling, and 6 cordocenteses). The main indication for performing invasive procedures was abnormal results of aneuploidy screening for trisomy 21, followed by maternal age, and fetal structural abnormality. The fetal karyotype was altered in 154 (26.1%) cases. Trisomy 21 was the most common aneuploidy followed by trisomy 18, monosomy X, and trisomy 13. Fetal karyotype could not be revealed in 42 (2%) cases due to maternal contamination in 18 cases, inadequate sampling in 4 cases, and failure of cell culture in 27 cases. There were 2 pregnancy losses due to the invasive procedure (only in amniocentesis).Conclusion: The ideal approach to pregnancies with a detected chromosomal abnormality should be tailored according to the individual choice of the couples regarding whether they decide for or against a child with a known chromosomal abnormality.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı, bir üniversite hastanesinde gerçekleştirilen tanısal invaziv prenatal girişimlerin (DIPP) sıklığını, endikasyonlarını ve sonuçlarını belirlemektir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif, gözlemsel çalışma, 2010-2016 yılları arasında bir üniversite hastanesinin kadın hastalıkları ve doğum bölümünde yapılan 2185 DIPP olgusunu (koryon villus örneklemesi, amniyosentez ve kordosentez) içermektedir. Eleventh-24. gebelik haftaları arasında işlem yapılan tüm DIPP olgularını dahil ettik. DIPP olgularını gruplandırarak 3 grup olarak birbirleriyle karşılaştırdık.Bulgular: İki bin yüz seksen beş işlem yapıldı (1853 amniyosentez, 326 koryon villus örneklemesi ve 6 kordosentez). İnvaziv prosedürlerin uygulanması için başlıca endikasyonlar sırasıyla, trizomi 21 anöploidi taramasında saptanan anormal sonuçları, maternal yaş ve fetal yapısal anomalilerdi. Fetal karyotip değişikliği 154 olguda (%26,1) izlendi. En sık rastlanan anöploidi trizomi 21 idi, bunu sırasıyla, trizomi 18, monosomi X ve trizomi 13 takip etti. On sekiz olguda maternal kontaminasyon, 4 olguda yetersiz örnekleme ve 27 olguda kültür üretilememesi nedeniyle 42 olguda (%2) fetal karyotip belirlenemedi. İnvaziv prosedür nedeniyle 2 gebelik kaybı vardı (sadece amniyosentezde).Sonuç: Kromozom anormalliği saptanan gebeliklerde en uygun yaklaşım, ailelelerin kromozom anomalisi saptanan çocuğu isteyip istememesine göre yönetimin bireyselleştirilmesidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCAN, H. Ç., UĞUR, M. G., SUCU, S., MUSTAFA, A., TEPE, N. B., BALAT, Ö. (2017). Summary of 2185 prenatal invasive procedures in a single center: A retrospective analysis. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 114–120. https://ajindex.com/articles/376299

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Borrell A, Casals E, Fortuny A, Farre MT, Gonce A, Sanchez A, et al. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 combining biochemistry and ultrasound at individually optimal gestational ages. An interventional study. Prenat Diagn 2004;24:541-5
  2. Spencer K, Spencer CE, Power M, Dawson C, Nicolaides KH. Screening for chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester using ultrasound and maternal serum biochemistry in a one-stop clinic: a review of three years prospective experience. BJOG 2003;110:281-6
  3. Norton ME, Rink BD. Changing indications for invasive testing in an era of improved screening. Semin Perinatol 2016;40:56-66
  4. Gardner RJ, SutherlandGR. Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counseling, 3rd ed NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics; Committee on Genetics; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 162: Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:e108-22
  6. Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM, Stamilio DM, Macones GA, Crane JP. Revisiting the fetal loss rate after second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: a single center's 16-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:589-95
  7. Mademont-Soler I, Morales C, Clusellas N, Soler A, Sánchez A; Group of Cytogenetics from Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis in Spain: analysis and evaluation of the results obtained from amniotic fluid samples during the l 8. Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010;27:1-7
  8. Akolekar R, Bower S, Flack N, Bilardo CM, Nicolaides KH. Prediction of miscarriage and stillbirth at 11-13 weeks and the contribution of chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:38-45
  9. Nicolaides KH, Snijders RJ, Gosden CM, Berry C, Campbell S. Ultrasonographically detectable markers of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Lancet 1992;340:704-7
  10. Brambati B, Tului L, Cislaghi C, Alberti E. First 10,000 chorionic villus samplings performed on singleton pregnancies by a single operator. Prenat Diagn 1998;18:255-66
  11. Saatçi Ç, Özkul Y, Taşdemir Ş, Kiraz A, Müderris İ, Taşçıoğlu N, et al. İnvazif prenatal tanı yöntemleri uygulanan 2295 olgunun retrospektif analizi. Perinatoloji Dergisi 2007;15:120-6
  12. Sundberg K, Bang J, Smidt-Jensen S, Brocks V, Lundsteen C, Parner J, et al. Randomised study of risk of fetal loss related to early amniocentesis