Skip to main content
Log in

Is pregnancy loss after amniocentesis related to the volume of amniotic fluid obtained?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective was to determine whether pregnancy loss after amniocentesis is related to the amount of amniotic fluid obtained during the procedure.

Study design

The study enrolled 2,400 women, all in their sixteenth to twentieth week of pregnancy. A 22G spinal needle was inserted for amniocentesis. The amount of amniotic fluid obtained from 1,200 patients in Group 1 was 4 ml and from 1,200 patients in Group 2 was 20 ml. In Group 1, the amniotic fluid was analyzed with a quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction technique, whereas in Group 2, conventional cytogenetic analysis was used. SPSS 16.0 (chi-square and t tests) was used for statistical analyses.

Results

In Group 1, postamniocentesis premature rupture of membranes (PROM) occurred in four patients (0.3%). There was one unintended fetal loss and postamniocentesis miscarriage rate was 0.08%. In Group 2, postamniocentesis PROM occurred in 12 patients (1%). Eight of these patients experienced fetal loss (0.67%). Fetal loss rates were higher in Group 2 compared with Group 1. These results did not show statistical differences between the groups according to chi-square test (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Although statistical analysis denies the positive effect of obtaining small amounts of amniotic fluid to reduce fetal loss rates in patients after amniocentesis, six to eight times lower fetal loss rates based on the amount of fluid obtained cannot be undervalued.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Cañadas MP (2004) Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies by QF-PCR. Assessment on 18,000 consecutive clinical samples. Mol Hum Reprod 10:839–846. doi:10.1093/molehr/gah108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Marongiu A (2006) Rapid prenatal diagnosis by QF-PCR: evaluation of 30,000 consecutive clinical samples and future applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1075:288–298. doi:10.1196/annals.1368.039

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Erez Y, Ben-Shushan A, Elchalal U (2007) Maternal morbidity following routine second trimester genetic amniocentesis. Fetal Diagn Ther 22:226–228. doi:10.1159/000098723

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Horger EO 3rd, Finch H, Vincent VA (2001) A single physician’s experience with four thousand six hundred genetic amniocenteses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:279–288. doi:10.1067/mob.2001.116737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kong CW, Leung TN, Leung TY (2006) Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 26:925–930. doi:10.1002/pd.1528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Müngen E, Tütüncü L, Muhcu M (2006) Pregnancy outcome following second-trimester amniocentesis: a case–control study. Am J Perinatol 23:25–30. doi:10.1055/s-2005-923432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nanal R, Kyle P, Soothill PW (2003) A classification of pregnancy losses after invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: an approach to allow comparison of units with a different case mix. Prenat Diagn 23:488–492. doi:10.1002/pd.623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nassar AH, Martin D, Gonzalez-Quintero VH (2004) Genetic amniocentesis complications: is the incidence overrated? Gynecol Obstet Invest 58:100–104. doi:10.1159/000078793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Papantoniou NE, Daskalakis GJ, Tziotis JG (2001) Risk factors predisposing to fetal loss following a second trimester amniocentesis. BJOG 108:1053–1056

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Saltvedt S, Almström H (1999) Fetal loss rate after second trimester amniocentesis at different gestational age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78:10–14. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.1999.780104.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Seeds JW (2004) Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:607–615. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Turhan NO, Eren U, Seckin NC (2005) Second-trimester genetic amniocentesis: 5-year experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 271:19–21. doi:10.1007/s00404-004-0635-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatma Bahar Cebesoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cebesoy, F.B., Balat, O., Pehlivan, S. et al. Is pregnancy loss after amniocentesis related to the volume of amniotic fluid obtained?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279, 357–360 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0740-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0740-2

Keywords

Navigation