SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Jinekoloji ve Obstetrik Derg. / 2006 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3

Congenital annular constricting band syndrome: Case report and a brief review of the literature

Konjenital annular konstrikte edici bant sendromu: Olgu sunumu ve literatürün kısaca gözden geçirilmesi

Turgut YARDIM
Koray ÖZBAY
R. Akın İNANMIŞ
Pages
182–186
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

In the prenatal diagnosis, routine ultrasonography is of greatest importance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVES: To present a congenital annular constriction band syndrome case and a brief review of the literature.CASE: A 35-year-old, gravida 12, para 7 pregnant woman was admitted to Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Government Hospital of Ahlat due to birth contractions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With an indication of ''38-39 week breech presantation pregnancy+fetal distress'' the patient was delivered with cesarean section.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the prenatal diagnosis, routine ultrasonography is of greatest importance.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To present a congenital annular constriction band syndrome case and a brief review of the literature.CASE: A 35-year-old, gravida 12, para 7 pregnant woman was admitted to Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Government Hospital of Ahlat due to birth contractions. With an indication of ''38-39 week breech presantation pregnancy+fetal distress'' the patient was delivered with cesarean section. The baby was diagnosed with ''congenital annular constricting band syndrome'' after delivery.CONCLUSION: Prenatal diagnosis of CACBs, sometimes can not be made due to concomitant oligohydramnios in the patients who has not been followed. In the prenatal diagnosis, routine ultrasonography is of greatest importance.

Özet

AMAÇ: Konjenital annular konstrikte edici bant sendromu (CACBs) saptanan olgunun sunumu ve literatürün kısaca gözden geçirilmesi.OLGU: Otuz beş yaşında, gravida 12, para 7, miadında, takipli olmayan, ağrılı gebe doğum ağrılarıyla Ahlat Devlet Hastanesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Bölümü'ne başvurdu. 38-39 haftalık makat prezantasyonu gebelik+fetal distress endikasyonu ile sezaryen operasyonu uygulanan annenin bebeğinde ''Konjenital annular konstrikte edici bant sendromu'' saptandı.SONUÇ: Etyolojisi henüz tam olarak bilinmeyen CACBs'nun prenatal tanısı takipsiz gebelerde konkomitan oligohidramnios nedeniyle yapılamayabilir. Prenatal tanıda, ilk haftalardan gebeliğin sonuna kadar ultrasonografi ile takip önem arz etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YARDIM, T., ÖZBAY, K., İNANMIŞ, R. A. (2022). Congenital annular constricting band syndrome: Case report and a brief review of the literature. Jinekoloji ve Obstetrik Derg., Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 3, 182–186. https://ajindex.com/articles/559025

References (14)

  1. Assefa G, Whittaker R: Amniotic band syndrome: a case report. East Afr Med J 1991; 68:235-238
  2. Paletta CE, Huang DB, Sabeoiro AP: An unusual presentation of constriction band syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104:171-174
  3. Bourne MH, Klassen RA: Congenital annular constricting bands: review of the literature and a case report. J Pediatr Orthop 1987; 7:218-221
  4. Lockwood C, Ghidini A, Romero R, Hobbins JC: Amniotic band syndrome: reevaluation of its pathogenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160:1030-1033
  5. Seidman JD, Abbondanzo SL, Watkin WG, Ragsdale B, Manz HJ: Amniotic band syndrome. Report of two cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med 6. Ray M, Hendrick SJ, Raimer SS, Blackwell SJ: Amniotic band syndrome. Int J Dermatol 1988; 27:312-314
  6. Visuthikosol V, Hompuem T: Constriction band syndrome. Ann Plast Surg 1988; 21:489-495
  7. Sentilhes L, Verspyck E, Eurin D, Ickowicz V, Patrier S, Lechevallier J, Marpeau L: Favourable outcome of a tight constriction band secondary to amniotic band syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24:198-201
  8. Kohn G: The amniotic band syndrome: a possible complication of amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 1987; 7:303-305
  9. Young ID, Lindenbaum RH, Thompson EM, Pembrey ME: Amniotic bands in connective tissue disorders. Arch Dis Child 1985; 60:1061-1063
  10. Light TR, Ogden JA: Congenital constriction band syndrome. Pathophysiology and treatment. Yale J Biol Med 1993; 66:143-155
  11. Granick MS, Ramasastry S, Vries J, Cohen MM: Severe amniotic band syndrome occurring with unrelated syndactyly. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987; 80:829-832
  12. Mahony BS, Filly RA, Callen PW, Golbus MS: The amniotic band syndrome: antenatal sonographic diagnosis and potential pitfalls. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;152:63-68
  13. Herbert WN, Seeds JW, Cefalo RC, Bowes WA: Prenatal detection of intraamniotic bands: implications and management. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65:365-385. 15. de Pablo A, Calb I, Jaimovich L: Congenital constriction bands: amniotic band syndrome. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32:528-529
  14. Nishi T, Nakano R: Amniotic band syndrome: serial ultrasonographic observations in the first trimester. 1994; 22:275-278.