Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-7lfxl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T23:28:18.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in prenatal diagnosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Paul P Fogarty  and
James C Dornan
Paul P Fogarty*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ards Hospital, Co Down, and Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, UK
James C Dornan
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ards Hospital, Co Down, and Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, UK
*
Dr Paul P Fogarty, Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ards Hospital, Church Street, Newtownards, Co Down BT23 4AS, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prenatal diagnosis is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in medicine and now forms a significant part of Fetal Medicine subspecialization. With the introduction of new technologies in the areas of human genetics, fetal therapy and fetal pathology, those interested must work hard to keep abreast of the latest advances. General obstetricians and those involved in pregnancy counselling must now be aware of all diseases which can be transmitted and for which prenatal diagnosis and screening tests are available and appropriate. There is a plethora of reviews of current techniques and procedures and it would be repetitive for us to produce another such paper. Rather, this article aims to highlight those areas which by definition are changing and where we see future developments occurring. Those readers seeking in depth reviews of present methods are referred to standard texts.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , May 1994 , pp. 113 - 118
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Whittle, M, Connor, Jeds, Prenatal diagnosis in obstetric practice. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1989: 201–67.Google Scholar
2Cuckle, HS, Densem, JW, Wald, NJ. Detection of hydatidiform mole in maternal serum screening programmes for Down’s syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 495–97.Google Scholar
3Morrow, R, McNay, M, Whittle, M. Ultrasound detection of neural tube defects in patients with elevated maternal serum alphafetoprotein. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 1055–57.Google Scholar
4Haddow, JE, Palomaki, GE, Knight, GJ, Williams, J, Pulkkinen, A, Canick, JA et al. Prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome with use of maternal serum markers. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 588–93.Google Scholar
5Wald, NJ, Cuckle, HS, Densem, JW, Kennard, A, Smith, D. Maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome: the effect of routine ultrasound scan determination of gestational age and adjustment for maternal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 144–49.Google Scholar
6Spencer, K, Mallard, A, Coombes, E, Macri, J. Prenatal screening for trisomy 18 with free β human chorionic gonadotrophin as a marker. Br Med J 1993; 307: 1455–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7van Lith, J, Mantingh, J, Beekhuis, J, de Bruijn, H. First trimester CA-125 and Down’s syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 493–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Hogdall, C, Hogdall, E, Arends, J, Norgaard-Pedersen, B, Smith-Jensen, S, Larsen, S. CA-125 as a maternal serum marker for Down’s syndrome in the first and second trimesters. Prenat Diagn 1992; 12: 223–27.Google Scholar
9Wald, N, Stone, R, Cuckle, HS, Grudzinskas, JG, Barkai, G, Brambati, B et al. First trimester concentrations of pregnancy associated plasma protein A and placental protein 14 in Down’s syndrome. Br Med J 1992; 305: 28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Nicolaides, KH, Snijders, RJ, Gosden, CM, Berry, C, Campbell, S. Ultrasonographically detectable markers of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Lancet 1992; 340: 704–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Nicolaides, K, Azar, G, Byrne, D, Mansur, C, Marks, K. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in the first trimester of pregnancy. Br Med J 1992; 304: 867–69.Google Scholar
12Cuckle, H, Wald, N, Quinn, J, Royston, P, Butler, L. Ultrasound fetal femur length measurement in the screening for Down’s syndrome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 1373–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Beattie, RB, Dornan, JC. Antenatal screening for intrauterine growth retardation with umbilical artery Doppler ultrasonography. Br Med J 1989; 298: 631–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Bower, S, Schuchter, K, Campbell, S. Doppler ultrasound screening as part of routine antenatal scanning: prediction of pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 989–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15McParland, P, Pearce, J, Chamberlain, G. Doppler ultrasound and aspirin in recognition and prevention of pregnancy induced hypertension. Lancet 1990; 335: 1552–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Horimoto, N, Hepper, P, Shahidullah, S, Koyanagi, T. Fetal eye movements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 3: 362–69.Google Scholar
17Hepper, PG. Diagnosing handicap using the behaviour of the fetus. Midwifery 1990; 6: 193–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Cardinale, A, Lagalla, R, Giambanco, V, Aragona, F. Bioeffects of ultrasound: an experimental study on human embryos. Ultrasonics 1991; 29: 261–63.Google Scholar
19Salvesen, KA, Bakketeig, LS, Eik-nes, SH, Undheim, JO, Okland, O. Routine ultrasonography in utero and school performance at age 8–9 years. Lancet 1992; 339: 85–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Barker, D, Gluckman, P, Godfrey, K, Harding, J, Owens, J, Robinson, J. Fetal nutrition and cardiovascular disease in adult life. Lancet 1993; 341: 938–41.Google Scholar
21Abramsky, L, Rodeck, CH. Women’s choices for fetal chromosome analysis. Prenat Diag 1991; 11: 23–28.Google Scholar
22 MRC working party on the evaluation of chorion villus sampling. Medical Research Council European trial of chorion villus sampling. Lancet 1991; 337: 1491–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Benacerraf, BR, Greene, MF, Saltzman, DH, Barss, VA, Penso, CA, Nadel, AS et al. Early amniocentesis for prenatal cytogenetic evaluation. Radiology 1988; 169: 709–10.Google Scholar
24Nevin, J, Nevin, NC, Dornan, JC, Sim, D, Armstrong, MJ. Early amniocentesis: experience of 222 consecutive patients, 1987–1988. Prenat Diagn 1990; 10: 79–83.Google Scholar
25Penso, 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 Scholar
26Sundberg, K, Smidt-Jensen, S, Philip, J. Amniocentesis with increased yield, obtained by filtration and reinjection of the amniotic fluid. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 1: 91–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Byrne, D, Marks, K, Braude, PR, Nicolaides, K. Amnifiltration in the first trimester: feasibility, technical aspects and cytological outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 1: 320–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Dolk, H. Methylene blue and atresia or stenosis of ileum and jejunum. EUROCAT Working Group. Lancet 1991; 338: 1021–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Tabsh, K. Genetic amniocentesis in multiple gestation: a new technique to diagnose monoamniotic twins. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 296–98.Google Scholar
30Jeanty, P, Shah, D, Roussis, P. Single-needle insertion in twin amniocentesis. J Ultrasound Med 1990; 9: 511–17.Google Scholar
31Bahado, SR, Schmitt, R, Hobbins, JC. New technique for genetic amniocentesis in twins. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 304–307.Google Scholar
32Finberg, H. The “twin peak” sign: reliable evidence of dichorionic twinning. J Ultrasound Med 1992; 11: 571–77.Google Scholar
33Fisk, N, Bryan, E. Routine prenatal determination of chorionicity in multiple gestation: a plea to the obstetrician. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 975–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Alter, BP. Prenatal diagnosis: general introduction, methodology and review. Hemoglobin 1988; 12: 763–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Weiner, CP. The role of cordocentesis in fetal diagnosis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1988; 31: 285–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Weiner, CP. Thrombocytopenia and cordocentesis clarifications requested. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1091–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Achiron, R, Rabinovitz, R, Aboulafia, Y, Diamant, Y, Glaser, J. Intrauterine assessment of high-output cardiac failure with spontaneous remission of hydrops fetalis in twin-twin transfusion syndrome: use of two-dimensional echocardiography, Doppler ultrasound and colour flow mapping. J Clin Ultrasound 1992; 20: 271–77.Google Scholar
38Tanaka, M, Natori, M, Ishimoto, H, Kohno, H, Kobayashi, T, Nozawa, S. Intravascular pancuronium bromide infusion for prenatal diagnosis of twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Fetal Diagn Ther 1992; 7: 36–40.Google Scholar
39Prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 1989: 18–22.Google Scholar
40Adinolfi, M. On a non-invasive approach to prenatal diagnosis based on the detection of fetal nucleated cells in maternal blood samples. Prenat Diagn 1991; 11: 799–804.Google Scholar
41Adinolfi, M, Polani, PE. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders in preimplantation embryos: invasive and non-invasive approaches. Hum Genet 1989; 83: 16–19.Google Scholar
42Drife, J, Donnai, D eds. Antenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. London: Springer-Verlag, 1991: 279–93.Google Scholar
43 Department of Health. Changing childbrith, Part 1. Report of the expert maternity group. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar