Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T15:09:44.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early amniocentesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Dominic L Byrne
Dominic L Byrne*
Affiliation:
Department of Fetal Medicine, Treliske Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, UK
*
Mr Dominic L Byrne, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Department of Fetal Medicine, Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro, Cornwall TR1 3LJ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although amniocentesis was first reported in 1882, the technique was not in widespread clinical practice until the 1970's. The reason for this slow uptake was that there were few indications for performing the procedure until fetal karyotyping from amniotic fluid cells became possible in 1966. Currently fetal karyotyping is the commonest indication for the technique and amniocentesis has become the mainstay of antenatal diagnosis.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , November 1994 , pp. 203 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Schatz, F. Eine besondre Art von einseiteiger Polyhydramnie mit anderseiter Oligohydramnie bei eineiigen Zwilligen. Arch Gynäkol 1882; 19: 329–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Steele, MW, Bregg, WR. Chromosome analysis in human amniotic fluid cells. Lancet 1966; i: 383–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Nadler, HL. Prenatal detection of genetic defects. J Pediatr 1969; 74: 132–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Tabor, A, Philip, J, Masden, M, Bang, J, Obel, EB, Norgaard-Peterson, B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low risk women. Lancet 1986; i: 1287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Evans, MI, Drugan, A, Koppitch, FC, Zador, IE, Sacks, AJ, Sokol, J. Genetic diagnosis in the first trimester: the norm for the 1990’s. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 1332–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Hahnemann, N, Mohr, J. Genetic diagnosis in the embryo by means of biopsy of the extra-amniotic membrane. Bull Eur Soc Hum Genet 1968; 2: 23–29.Google Scholar
7Hahnemann, N. Early prenatal diagnosis; a study of biopsy techniques and cell culturing from the extra-embryonic membranes. Clin Genet 1974; 6: 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Tietung Hospital of Ansham Iron and Steel Company, Ansham. Fetal sex prediction by sex chromatin of the chorionic villi cells during early pregnancy. Chin Med J 1975; 1: 117–26.Google Scholar
9Rhine, SA, Palmer, CG, Thompson, JF. A simple alternative to amniocentesis for first trimester prenatal diagnosis. The National Foundation, Birth defects, original article series XII; 3D: 231–47.Google Scholar
10Horwell, DH, Loeffler, FE, Coleman, DV. Assessment of a transcervical aspiration technique for chorionic villus biopsy in the first trimester of pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 196–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Smidt-Jensen, S, Hahnemann, N. Transabdominal fine needle biopsy from chorionic villi in the first trimester. Prenat Diagn 1984; 4: 163–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Lilford, RJ, Irving, HC, Linton, G, Mason, MK. Transabdominal chorion villus biopsy: 100 consecutive cases. Lancet 1987; i: 1415–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Mikkelsen, M. Chromosome analysis on chorionic villi. In: Rodeck, CR ed, Fetal diagnosis of genetic defects. London: Baillière Tindall, 1987; 533–46.Google Scholar
14 Canadian Collaborative CVS-Amniocentesis Clinical Trial Group. Multicentre randomized, clinical trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. Lancet 1989; i: 1–6.Google Scholar
15Medical Research Council European trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. Lancet 1991; 8756: 1491–99.Google Scholar
16Stone, JL, Lockwood, CJ. Amniocentesis and chorion villus sampling. Curr Science 1993; 5: 211–17.Google Scholar
17Smidt-Jensen, S, Permin, M, Philip, J. Sampling success and risk by transabdominal chorionic villus sampling, transcervical chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis: a randomized study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991; 1: 86–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Firth, HV, Boyd, PA, Chamberlain, P, MacKenzie, IZ, Lindenbaum, RH, Huson, SM. Severe limb abnormalities after chorion villus sampling at 55–66 days’ gestation. Lancet 1991; 337: 762–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Froster, UG, Baird, PA. Limb reduction defects in over one million consecutive livebirths. Teratology 1989; 39: 127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Mastroiacovo, P, Cavalcanti, DP. Limb-reduction defects and chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 1991; 337: 1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Hsieh, F, Chen, D, Tseng, L, Lee, C, Ko, T, Chuang, S et al. Limb-reduction defects and chorion villus sampling. Lancet 1991; 337: 1091–92.Google Scholar
22Miny, P, Holzgreve, W, Horst, J, Lenz, W. Limb-reduction defects and chorion villus sampling. Lancet 1991; 337: 1423–24.Google Scholar
23 Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists Working Party. A proposed workload measurement system for clinical genetics. London: Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists, 1987.Google Scholar
24Nelson, NM. Amniotic fluid volumes in early pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Cwlth 1972; 79: 50–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Langman, J. Development of the fetal membranes and placenta. In: Langman, J ed, Medical embryology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company, 1975; 89–107.Google Scholar
26Yang, CH, ChuHo, CC, Lo, FJ, Hsieh, WK. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis by amniocentesis before 15 weeks gestation. Chin Med J 1993; 52: 81–86.Google ScholarPubMed
27Hanson, FW, Zorn, EM, Tennant, FR, Marianos, S, Samuels, S. Amniocentesis before 15 weeks gestation: outcome, risks and technical problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 156: 1524–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Byrne, DL. Author’s current experience with early amniocentesis procedures in pregnancies complete to delivery. (unpublished data)Google Scholar
29Rooney, DE, MacLachlan, N, Smith, J, Robello, MT, Loeffler, FE, Beard, RW et al. Early amniocentesis: a cytogenetic evaluation. Br Med J 1989; 299: 25–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Jorgensen, FS, Bang, J, Lind, AM, Christensen, B, Lundsteen, C, Philip, J. Genetic amniocentesis at 7–14 weeks of gestation. Prenat Diagn 1992; 12: 277–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Johnson, A, Goodmillow, L. Genetic amniocentesis at 14 weeks or less. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1988; 31: 345–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Hanson, FW, Tennant, F, Hune, S, Brookhyser, K. Early amniocentesis: outcome, risks and technical problems at < 12.8 weeks. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1701–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Nevin, J, Nevin, NC, Dornan, JC, Sim, D, Armstrong, MJ. Early amniocentesis: experience of 222 consecutive patients, 1987–88. Prenat Diagn 1990; 10: 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Byrne, D, Marks, K, Azar, G, Nicolaides, K. Randomized study of early amniocentesis versus chorionic villus sampling: a technical and cytogenetic comparison of 650 patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991; 1: 235–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Elejalde, BR, Elejalde, M, Thelen, D, Trujillo, C, Karman, M. Prospective study of amniocentesis performed between weeks 9 and 16 of gestation: its feasibility, risks, complications and use in early genetic prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet 1990; 35: 188–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Stripparo, L, Buscaglia, M, Dambrosio, F, Longatti, L, Vergani, S, Rosella, F et al. Amniocentesis prior to 15 weeks’ gestation. Results of 195 cases. In: Antisaklis, A, Metaxotou, C eds, Fourth International Conference on chorion villus sampling and early prenatal diagnosis. Athens, 1989; 251–52.Google Scholar
37Penso, CA, Sandstrom, MM, Garber, MF, Ladoulis, M, Stryker, JM, Benacerraf, BB. Early amniocentesis: report of 407 cases with neonatal follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 1032–36.Google ScholarPubMed
38Hackett, GA, Smith, JH, Rebello, MT, Gray, CTH, Rooney, DE, Beard, RW et al. Early amniocentesis at 11–14 weeks gestation for the diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormality – a clinical evaluation. Prenat Diagn 1991; 11: 311–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Assel, BG, Lewis, SM, Dickerman, LH, Park, VM, Jassani, MN. Single operator comparison of early and mid second trimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 940–44.Google ScholarPubMed
40Gosden, CM, Brock, DJH. Combined use of alpha-fetoprotein and amniotic fluid cell morphology in early prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. J Med Genet 1978; 15: 262–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Watchell, E, Gordon, H, Olsen, E. Cytology of amniotic fluid. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Cwlth 1969; 76: 592–602.Google Scholar
42Byrne, D, Azar, G, Nicolaides, K. Why cell culture is successful after early amniocentesis. Fetal Diagn Ther 1991; 6: 84–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Lilford, RJ. Invasive diagnostic procedures. In: Lilford, RJ ed, Prenatal diagnosis and prognosis. London: Butterworths, 1990; 208–25.Google Scholar
44Rebello, MT, Gray, CTH, Rooney, DE, Smith, JH, Hackett, GA, Loeffler, FE et al. Cytogenetic studies of amniotic fluid taken before the 15th week of pregnancy for earlier prenatal diagnosis: a report of 114 consecutive cases. Prenat Diagn 1991; 11: 35–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Djalali, M, Barbi, G, Kennerknecht, I, Terinde, R. Introduction of early amniocentesis to routine prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 1991; 12: 661–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Kerber, S, Held, KR. Early genetic amniocentesis - 4 years’ experience. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Gilmore, DH, McNay, MB. Spontaneous fetal loss rate in early pregnancy. Lancet 1985; i: 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Wilson, RD, Kendrick, E, Whittmann, BK, McGillivray, BC. Risk of spontaneous abortions in ultrasonically normal pregnancies. Lancet 1984; 2: 920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49 The NICHD National Registry for Amniocentesis Study Group. Mid-trimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis: safety and accuracy. JAMA 1976; 236: 1471–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Jobe, A. Fetal lung maturation and the respiratory distress syndrome. In: Beard, RW, Nathanielsz, PW eds, Fetal physiology and medicine. New York: Marcel Dekker inc. Butterworths, 1984; 317–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Hislop, A, Reid, L. Development of the acinus in the human lung. Thorax 1974; 29: 90–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Potter, EL. Bilateral renal agenesis. J Pediatr 1946; 29: 68–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Perlman, M, Williams, J, Hirsch, M. Neonatal pulmonary hypoplasia after prolonged leakage of amniotic fluid. Arch Dis Child 1976; 51: 349–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54Alcorn, D, Adamson, TM, Lambert, TF, Maloney, JE, Ritchie, BC, Robinson, PM. Morphological effects of chronic tracheal ligation and drainage in fetal lamb lung. J Anat 1977; 123: 649–60.Google ScholarPubMed
55Hislop, A, Fairweather, DVI, Blackwell, RJ, Howard, S. The effect of amniocentesis and drainage of amniotic fluid on lung development in Macaca fascicularis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 835–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Wigglesworth, JS, Desai, R. Is fetal respiratory function a major determinant of perinatal survival? Lancet 1982; i: 264–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Sundberg, K, Smidt-Jenson, S, Philip, J. Amniocentesis with increased cell yield, obtained by filtration and reinjection of the amniotic fluid. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991; 1: 91–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58Byrne, DL, Marks, K, Braude, PR, Nicolaides, K. Amnifiltration in the first trimester: feasibility, technical aspects and cytological outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991; 1: 320–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59Byrne, DL, Penna, L, Marks, K, Offley-Shore, B. First trimester amnifiltration; technical, cytogenetic and pregnancy outcome of 104 consecutive procedures. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; in press.Google Scholar
60Nicolaides, KH, Azar, G, Byrne, D, Marks, K. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in the first trimester of pregnancy. Br Med J 1992; 6831: 867–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar