Literature DB >> 8454285

Evaluation of routine prenatal ultrasound examination in detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities in a low risk population.

C Stoll1, B Dott, Y Alembik, M P Roth.   

Abstract

Prenatal diagnosis performed by fetal ultrasound scan is now a routine part of antenatal care in many countries. We have used our registry of congenital malformations to determine how many fetal anomalies and consequently how many chromosomal abnormalities are detected by this procedure. In our region, evaluation of prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in women of 38 years and younger (chromosomal prenatal diagnosis is offered to women > or = 38 years) with no personal or familial history of chromosomal anomaly was performed in 119,099 consecutive pregnancies of known outcome from 1980 to 1987. At least one ultrasonographic examination seeking congenital malformations was performed in more than 95% of the pregnant women studied. The total number of chromosomal anomalies during the study period was 199, 123 of these being Down syndrome. Only 41 (34.5%) of the 119 fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities and congenital malformation examined had been found to have a malformation at ultrasound examination. This low sensitivity was different for the diverse chromosomal abnormalities. Only 10 out of the 54 fetuses with Down syndrome and malformations (18.5%) were detected and only 3 out of 24 (12.5%) atrioventricular canal defects in those trisomic 21 patients were detected. Only 5 out of 11 (45.4%) fetuses with trisomy 13, 13 out of 26 (50.0%) fetuses with trisomy 18, 7 out of 12 patients with monosomy X (58.3%) and 6 out of 27 (22.2%) fetuses with other chromosomal abnormalities were diagnosed. Moreover, the time of detection of these anomalies was early enough to allow amniocentesis and termination of pregnancy in the case of a chromosomal abnormality in only 15 out of these 41 patients, including 7 cases of cystic hygroma in fetuses with monosomy X. This low sensitivity is not the result of the quality of the ultrasound equipment. It may be explained by the inadequate qualification of some operators and by the insufficient duration of the routine examination. In conclusion, our study has shown that the sensitivity of the detection of chromosomal abnormalities by routine prenatal ultrasound screening is low. Other screening methods are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8454285     DOI: 10.1007/bf00230219

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Genet        ISSN: 0340-6717            Impact factor:   4.132


  15 in total

1.  Evaluation of routine ultrasound examination for the prenatal diagnosis of malformation.

Authors:  F Lys; P De Wals; I Borlee-Grimee; A Billiet; M Vincotte-Mols; S Levi
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 2.435

2.  Abnormal pregnancy sonogram: selective indication for fetal karyotype.

Authors:  R A Williamson; C P Weiner; S Patil; J Benda; M W Varner; M M Abu-Yousef
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  The diagnosis of fetal hydrocephalus prior to 22 weeks.

Authors:  B R Benacerraf; J C Birnholz
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 0.910

4.  Fetal karyotype following ascertainment of fetal anomalies by ultrasound.

Authors:  C G Palmer; J H Miles; P N Howard-Peebles; R E Magenis; S Patil; J M Friedman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 5.  Medical progress. Congenital malformations: etiologic factors and their role in prevention (first of two parts).

Authors:  H Kalter; J Warkany
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1983-02-24       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  [An epidemiological study of oligohydramnios associated with congenital malformations].

Authors:  C Stoll; B Dott; Y Alembik; M P Roth
Journal:  J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris)       Date:  1990

7.  Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy.

Authors:  K H Nicolaides; G Azar; D Byrne; C Mansur; K Marks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-04-04

8.  Study of 156 cases of polyhydramnios and congenital malformations in a series of 118,265 consecutive births.

Authors:  C G Stoll; Y Alembik; B Dott
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population.

Authors:  L S Chitty; G H Hunt; J Moore; M O Lobb
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-11-09

Review 10.  Congenital cystic hygroma of the neck diagnosed prenatally: outcome with normal and abnormal karyotype.

Authors:  J S Abramowicz; S L Warsof; D L Doyle; D Smith; D L Levy
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.050

View more
  4 in total

1.  Medicalization and obstetric care: an analysis of developments in Dutch midwifery.

Authors:  Anke D J Smeenk; Henk A M J ten Have
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2003

Review 2.  Ultrasonographic soft markers of aneuploidy in second trimester: are we lost?

Authors:  Sameer Raniga; P D Desai; Hetal Parikh
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2006-01-11

3.  Strategies for antenatal detection of Down's syndrome.

Authors:  J P Wyllie; R J Madar; M Wright; J Burn; C Wren
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 5.747

Review 4.  Non-Invasive Screening Tools for Down's Syndrome: A Review.

Authors:  Kelly A Sillence; Tracey E Madgett; Llinos A Roberts; Timothy G Overton; Neil D Avent
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2013-05-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.