Soner GÖK, Berfin Can GÖK, G. Ozan ÇETİN

Kliniğimizde invaziv prenatal tanı yöntemi olarak amniyosentez uygulanan olguların retrospektif değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum kliniğimizde çeşitli endikasyonlarla gerçekleştirilen genetik amniyosentez olgularından elde edilen sonuçları değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktayız. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmamızda Kasım 2018-Ağustos 2020 tarihleri arasında kliniğimize prenatal tanı değerlendirmesi nedeniyle başvurup amniyosentez uygulanan olgular dahil edilerek, olguların demografik verileri, amniyosentez endikasyonları ve sonuçları retrospektif olarak değerlendirilerek özetlendi. Bulgular: Değerlendirmeye alınan 246 olgunun ortanca yaşı 34 (IQR:10), ortanca gebelik haftası 17 (IQR:3), ortanca gravide 3 (IQR:2), ortanca parite 1 (IQR:1), ortalama abortus sayısı 0,6 (SD:0,96) idi. Amniyosentez endikasyonları olan risk faktörleri değerlendirildiğinde 146 hastada (%59,3) 1. trimester kombine testinde anormallik, 39 hastada (%15,9) 3’lü tarama testinde anormallik, 14 hastada (%5,7) 4’lü tarama testinde anormallik, 24 hastada (%9,8) anormal USG bulgusu, 6 hastada (%2,4) ileri anne yaşı saptanırken, 17 hastada (%6,9) diğer risk faktörleri mevcuttu. Olguların %4,5’inde amniyosentez anormal olarak sonuçlandı. 128 hastada (%52) 46 XX, 107 hastada (%43,5) 46 XY ile normal olarak sonuçlandı. Anormal olarak sonuçlanan 10 olgudan 5’inde (%2) 47 XX+21, 3 hastada (%1,2) 47 XY+21, 1 hastada (%0,4) 47 XX+13, 1 hastada (%0,4) 47 XXY olarak sayısal anomali saptanırken 1 hastada 46 XX t (6;13) (p23;q13) yapısal anomali saptandı. Kromozomal anomali saptanan olgularda ortanca anne yaşı 34 (IQR=8), ortanca gebelik haftası 18 (IQR=3), ortanca gravide 2,5 (IQR=2), ortanca parite ise 1(IQR=1) idi. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda amniyosentez endikasyonu oluşturan en sık risk faktörü maternal tarama testlerinde anormallik iken anormal USG bulgusu daha genç hastalarda endikasyon oluşturmaktaydı.

Retrospective analysis of cases undergoing amniocentesis as an invasive prenatal diagnosis method in our university clinic

Abstract Purpose: We aim to evaluate the results obtained from genetic amniocentesis cases performed with various indications at our Gynecology and Obstetrics clinic. Materials and methods: In our study, cases who applied to our clinic for prenatal diagnosis evaluation between November 2018 and August 2020 and underwent amniocentesis were included. The demographic data, amniocentesis indications and results of the cases were retrospectively evaluated and summarized. Results: Of the 246 cases evaluated; Median age was 34 (IQR:10), median gestational week was 17 (IQR:3), median gravity was 3 (IQR:2), median parity was 1 (IQR:1), mean number of abortions was 0.6 (SD:0.96). Risk factors that are indications for amniocentesis were evaluated. 146 (59.3%) patients had an abnormality in the first trimester combined test, 39 (15.9%) patients had an abnormality in the triple screen test, 14 (5.7%) patients had an abnormality in the quadruple screening test, 24 (9.8%) patients had abnormal USG findings, 6 (2.4%) patients had advanced maternal age, and 17 (6.9%) patients had other risk factors. Amniocentesis was abnormal in 4.5% of the cases. It was normal in 128 (52%) patients with 46 XX, and 107 (43.5%) patients with 46 XY. In 5 out of 10 cases (2%) in abnormal results 47 XX+21, 3 patients (1.2%) 47 XY+21, 1 patient (0.4%) 47 XX+13, 1 patient (0.4%). While numerical abnormality was detected as 47 XXY, a structural abnormality was found as 46 XX t (6;13) (p23;q13) in 1 patient. In cases with chromosomal anomalies, the median maternal age was 34 (IQR=8), median gestational week was 18 (IQR=3), median gravity was 2.5 (IQR=2), and median parity was 1 (IQR=1). Conclusion: In our study, the most common risk factor for amniocentesis indication was an abnormality in maternal screening tests, while abnormal USG findings were indicative in younger patients.

PDF

___

1. Beksaç MS. Fetal tıp prenatal tanı. Ankara: Medical Network & Nobel, 1996:29-38.
2. Platt LD, DeVore GR, Lopez E, Herbert W, Falk R, Alfi O. Role of amniocentesis in ultrasound detected fetal malformations. Obstet Gynecol 1986;68:153-155.
3. Blackwell SC, Abundis MG, Nehra PC. Five year experience with midtrimester amniocentesis performed by a single group of obstetriciangynecologists at a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:130-132. https://doi.org/10.1067/ mob.2002.122987
4. 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. Obstetrics and gynecology, 2016;127:108-122. https://doi.org/10.1097/ AOG.0000000000001405
5. Turhan Öztürk N, Eren Ü, Seçkin NC. Second trimester genetic amniocentesis: 5 year experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005;271:19-21. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00404-004-0635-9
6. Türkyılmaz A, Budak T. Laboratuvarımıza prenatal tanı için sevk edilen ailelerde endikasyon ve sonuç uygunluklarının değerlendirilmesi. Dicle Tıp Dergisi 2007;34:258-263.
7. Odabaşı A, Yüksel H, Sezer Demircan S, ve ark. İkinci trimester genetik amniyosentez işleminin sonuçları: Türkiye’deki 22 merkezin sonuçlarıyla birlikte, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi deneyimi. Türkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obst 2007;17:196-206.
8. Acar A, Ercan F, Yıldırım S, ve ark. Genetik amniyosentez sonuçlarımız: 3721 vakanın analizi. 2016. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni. 2016;50:33-38. https://doi.org/10.5350/semb.20160103093300
9. Bahado Singh R, Shahabi S, Karaca M, et al. The comprehensive midtrimester test: high-sensitivity Down syndrome test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:803- 808. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.121651
10. Viora E, Errante G, Bastonero S, et al. Minor sonographic signs of trisomy 21 at 15-20 weeks’ gestation in fetuses born with out malformations: a prospective study. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:1163-1166. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.197
11. Rizzo N, Pittalis MC, Pilu G, Orsini LF, Perolo A, Bovicelli L. Prenatal karyotyping in malformed fetuses. Prenat Diagn 1990;10:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pd.1970100104
12. Dallaire L, Michaud J, Melancon SB, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies during the second trimester of pregnancy: their characterization and delineation of defects in pregnancies at risk. Prenat Diagn 1991;11:629-635. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pd.1970110821
13. Stoll C, Dott B, Alembik Y, et al. Evalution of routine prenatal ultrasound examination in detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities in a low risk population. Hum Genet 1993;91:37-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00230219