BibTex RIS Cite

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği'ndeki Dört Yıllık Genetik Amniyosentez Sonuçlarının Retrospektif Bir Analizi

Year 2005, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 14 - 18, 08.04.2009

Abstract

SüleymanDemirel Üniversitesi
TIP FAKÜLTESİ DERGİSİ: 2005 Haziran; 12(2)




Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği'ndeki Dört Yıllık Genetik Amniyosentez Sonuçlarının Retrospektif Bir Analizi



Seyit Ali Köse



Özet

Bu çalışmada; 2000-2004 yılları arasında Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği'nde yapılan genetik amniyosentez uygulamalarının endikasyonları ve sonuçları retrospektif olarak araştırılmış ve sunulmuştur. Bu retrospektif analizde amniyosentez uygulanan 300 ailenin kayıtları değerlendirilmiş, amniyosentez ile elde edilmiş olan fetal doku örneklerinde sitogenetik tetkikle yapılmış olan prenatal tanılar ve elde edilen bulgular literatür ışığı altında tartışılmıştır. En sık genetik amniyosentez endikasyonunu ileri yaş gebeliği % 42.3 (127/300) oluşturmaktaydı. Kromozom bozukluğu oranı % 6.6 (20/300), en sık saptanan kromozom bozukluğu Trizomi 21 (Down Sendromu) olarak bulundu.



Anahtar kelimeler: Amniyosentez, prenatal tanı.



Abstract



A Retrospective Analysis of the Four Year Results of Genetic Amniocentesis Performed in the Department Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Suleyman Demirel University School of Medicine

In this study, the indications and the results of genetic amniocentesis performed in the Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department at Suleyman Demirel University, School of Medicine between 2000 and 2004 were investigated retrospectively. In this retrospective analysis the hospital records of three hundred patients who were undergone genetic amniocentesis were evaluated thoroughly and the prenatal diagnosis based on the cytogenetic analysis of the fetal tissue obtained by amniocentesis were discussed in the light of the relevant literature findings. The most common indication for amniocentesis was advanced maternal age 42.3 % (127/300). The rate of chromosomal disorders was 6.6 % (20/300) and most common chromosomal disorder seen was Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome).



Key words: Amniyosentez, prenatal tanı.

References

  • Apak MA. Genetik hastalýklara yaklaþým ve genetik danýþma ‘‘Prenatal taný ve tedavi’’ Editör: K. Aydýnlý. Ýstanbul Perspektiv, 1992;1-18.
  • Tabor A. ‘‘Amniocentesis’’ Kurjak A. (ed): Textbook of perinatal medicine. New York, USA Parthenon Publishing, 1998;1047-55.
  • Ferguson-Smith MA. Prenatal chromosome analysis and its impact on the incidence. BMC 39, 1983: 355- 57.
  • Boure A, Gallano PA. Collaborative study of the serration of inherited chromosome structural rearrangements in 1356 prenatal diagnosis. Pre Diag (special diag), 1994 (4): 45-51.
  • Milunsky A. The use of biochemical markers in maternal serum screening for chromosome defects. ‘‘Genetic disorders and the fetus’’ Editor A. Milunsky. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1992.
  • Marthin T, Liedgren S, Hammar M. Transplacental needle passage and other risk factors associated with second trimester amniocentesis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 1997; (76): 728-32.
  • Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sirivatanapa P. Amniocentesis-related fetal loss; a cohort study. Obstet Gynecol, 1998; (92): 64-7.
  • Apak M, Baþaran S, Aydýnlý K, Kayserili H, Karaman B, Polat D, et al. Genetik hastalýklarýn prenatal tanýsý: I.U. Pretam’daki üç yýllýk uygulama ve araþtýrmanýn sonuçlarý. Ýstanbul Týp Fak. Mecm, 1999: 62- 4.
  • Halliday J. Karyotype abnormalities in fetuses diagnosed as abnormal on US before 20 weeks gestational age. Pre Diag, 1994; (14): 689-92.
  • Rizzo N. Prenatal karyotping in malformed fetuses. Pre Diag, 1990; (10):17-9.
  • Sjögren B. Prenatal diagnosis for psychological reasons: Comparison with other indications, advanced maternal age and known genetic risk. Pre Diag, 1990; (10): 11- 2.
  • Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; (327): 1287-93.
  • Brumfield CG, Lins, Conner W. Pregnancy outcome following genetic amniocentesis at 11-14 versus 16- 19 weeks gestation. Obstet Gynecol, 1996; (88): 114- 18.
  • The Canadian Early and Mid-trimester Amniocentesis Trial (CEMAT) Group. Randomised trial to assess safety and fetal outcome of early and midtrimester amniocentesis. Lancet 1998; (351): 242-47.
  • Milunsky A. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders. Am J Med, 1981; (3): 70-7.
  • Tabor A, Jerne D, Bock JE. Incidence of rhesus immunisation after genetic amniocentesis. Br. Med J 1987; (293): 533-36.
Year 2005, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 14 - 18, 08.04.2009

Abstract

References

  • Apak MA. Genetik hastalýklara yaklaþým ve genetik danýþma ‘‘Prenatal taný ve tedavi’’ Editör: K. Aydýnlý. Ýstanbul Perspektiv, 1992;1-18.
  • Tabor A. ‘‘Amniocentesis’’ Kurjak A. (ed): Textbook of perinatal medicine. New York, USA Parthenon Publishing, 1998;1047-55.
  • Ferguson-Smith MA. Prenatal chromosome analysis and its impact on the incidence. BMC 39, 1983: 355- 57.
  • Boure A, Gallano PA. Collaborative study of the serration of inherited chromosome structural rearrangements in 1356 prenatal diagnosis. Pre Diag (special diag), 1994 (4): 45-51.
  • Milunsky A. The use of biochemical markers in maternal serum screening for chromosome defects. ‘‘Genetic disorders and the fetus’’ Editor A. Milunsky. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1992.
  • Marthin T, Liedgren S, Hammar M. Transplacental needle passage and other risk factors associated with second trimester amniocentesis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 1997; (76): 728-32.
  • Tongsong T, Wanapirak C, Sirivatanapa P. Amniocentesis-related fetal loss; a cohort study. Obstet Gynecol, 1998; (92): 64-7.
  • Apak M, Baþaran S, Aydýnlý K, Kayserili H, Karaman B, Polat D, et al. Genetik hastalýklarýn prenatal tanýsý: I.U. Pretam’daki üç yýllýk uygulama ve araþtýrmanýn sonuçlarý. Ýstanbul Týp Fak. Mecm, 1999: 62- 4.
  • Halliday J. Karyotype abnormalities in fetuses diagnosed as abnormal on US before 20 weeks gestational age. Pre Diag, 1994; (14): 689-92.
  • Rizzo N. Prenatal karyotping in malformed fetuses. Pre Diag, 1990; (10):17-9.
  • Sjögren B. Prenatal diagnosis for psychological reasons: Comparison with other indications, advanced maternal age and known genetic risk. Pre Diag, 1990; (10): 11- 2.
  • Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; (327): 1287-93.
  • Brumfield CG, Lins, Conner W. Pregnancy outcome following genetic amniocentesis at 11-14 versus 16- 19 weeks gestation. Obstet Gynecol, 1996; (88): 114- 18.
  • The Canadian Early and Mid-trimester Amniocentesis Trial (CEMAT) Group. Randomised trial to assess safety and fetal outcome of early and midtrimester amniocentesis. Lancet 1998; (351): 242-47.
  • Milunsky A. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders. Am J Med, 1981; (3): 70-7.
  • Tabor A, Jerne D, Bock JE. Incidence of rhesus immunisation after genetic amniocentesis. Br. Med J 1987; (293): 533-36.
There are 16 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Seyit Köse This is me

Publication Date April 8, 2009
Submission Date April 6, 2009
Published in Issue Year 2005 Volume: 12 Issue: 2

Cite

Vancouver Köse S. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği’ndeki Dört Yıllık Genetik Amniyosentez Sonuçlarının Retrospektif Bir Analizi. Med J SDU. 2009;12(2):14-8.

                                                                                               14791 


Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi/Medical Journal of Süleyman Demirel University is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International.