HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by WRIGHT, D. J. Articles by EVANS, M. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by WRIGHT, D. J. Articles by EVANS, M. I.

Interpretation of Chorionic Villus Sampling Laboratory Results is Just as Reliable as Amniocentesis

From the Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, Departments of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Molecular Biology and Genetics, Hutzel Hospital/Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan

Abstract

Karyotypes of chorionic villi have been said to be less accurate than karyotypes of amniocytes. Karyotypic differences between placental and fetal tissue and maternal-cell contamination could potentially complicate clinical management. We compared cytogenetic results obtained by chorionic villus sampling and amniotic fluid cells in our center during a 2-year period (1986–1987). Chorionic villus sampling material was processed for direct analysis and backed up when indicated (now routinely) with tissue cultures. The incidence of inconclusive results requiring additional studies was 1.2% for chorionic villus sampling and 0.75% for amniotic fluid cells. Mosaicism was the most common problem for both chorionic villus sampling and amniotic fluid cells. Failure of growth was more frequent in amniocentesis material (0.35 versus 0.09%), but polyploidy and atypical aneuploidies were greater with chorionic villus sampling. The accuracy of cytogenetic evaluation by chorionic villus sampling and amniotic fluid cells and the need for additional invasive procedures appear to be equal in our laboratory. (Obstet Gynecol 74:739,1989)