We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
A comparison of pregnancy loss between transcervical and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling.
Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994 May
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety of transcervical and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling (CVS).
METHODS: From May 1988 to January 1992, CVS was performed by two operators at 9-12 weeks' gestation in 1048 singleton pregnancies. The sampling method for each patient, transabdominal or transcervical, was chosen primarily based upon placental location; the transabdominal route was used for anterior or fundal location and the transcervical route for posterior placentation. Perinatal outcome was assessed by post-procedure patient telephone contact, mid-gestation ultrasound evaluation, postpartum questionnaire completed by the referring obstetrician, and telephone interview with each patient after delivery.
RESULTS: Complete follow-up was available in 1012 cases (97%). Excluding 39 elective abortions, 35 of 973 euploid pregnancies aborted spontaneously. The difference in fetal loss rate between transcervical and transabdominal CVS approached statistical significance (5.2 versus 2.9%; P = .058). Bleeding before CVS (P = .006) and multiple placental aspirations (P = .022) were associated with fetal loss for the entire study group. An interaction between uterine position and sampling method was also indicated; an increased loss rate was associated with transcervical CVS in the presence of uterine retroversion (P = .0017).
CONCLUSION: Despite choosing the preferred CVS method for each patient, an increased loss rate may be associated with transcervical sampling in the presence of uterine retroversion.
METHODS: From May 1988 to January 1992, CVS was performed by two operators at 9-12 weeks' gestation in 1048 singleton pregnancies. The sampling method for each patient, transabdominal or transcervical, was chosen primarily based upon placental location; the transabdominal route was used for anterior or fundal location and the transcervical route for posterior placentation. Perinatal outcome was assessed by post-procedure patient telephone contact, mid-gestation ultrasound evaluation, postpartum questionnaire completed by the referring obstetrician, and telephone interview with each patient after delivery.
RESULTS: Complete follow-up was available in 1012 cases (97%). Excluding 39 elective abortions, 35 of 973 euploid pregnancies aborted spontaneously. The difference in fetal loss rate between transcervical and transabdominal CVS approached statistical significance (5.2 versus 2.9%; P = .058). Bleeding before CVS (P = .006) and multiple placental aspirations (P = .022) were associated with fetal loss for the entire study group. An interaction between uterine position and sampling method was also indicated; an increased loss rate was associated with transcervical CVS in the presence of uterine retroversion (P = .0017).
CONCLUSION: Despite choosing the preferred CVS method for each patient, an increased loss rate may be associated with transcervical sampling in the presence of uterine retroversion.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app