Ginecología y Obstetricia de México

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board

>Journals >Ginecología y Obstetricia de México >Year 2018, Issue 04

Molina-GiraldoS, Gaviria AM, Beltrán-Acosta S, Alberto-Castro C, Rojas-Arias JL, Alfonso-Arias D, Arreaza-Graterol M, Pinto-Quiñones ML, Acuña-Osorio E, Solano-Montero AF
Results and complications of amniocentesis. Experience of two centers of Latin American fetal maternal medicine
Ginecol Obstet Mex 2018; 86 (04)

Language: Español
References: 20
Page: 239-246
PDF: 243.57 Kb.

Full text


Objective: The purpose of this paper is to describe the indications, complications and results of amniocentesis performed in two fetal maternal medicine units in Bogota Colombia between 2009 and 2015.
Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional observational descriptive study; 770 amniocentesis performed during 6 years (2009 - 2015) with evaluation of the characteristics of the patients, procedures and complications observed were evaluated. In addition, the findings were compared with reports from different studies of the world literature.
Results: 748 amniocentesis data were included, statistically analyzing the clinical characteristics of the patients and the results, indications and complications of the procedure. The median age was 29 years (RIQ: 23-37). The most common indication was genetic in 508 cases (67.9%). 89 (17.5%) cases of chromosomopathies were reported, with trisomy 21 being more frequently observed in 41 patients (46%). The loss of pregnancy and the threat of preterm labor attributable to amniocentesis were 0.94% and 2.54%, respectively.
Conclusion: The characteristics of amniocentesis allow us to know statistics of outcomes, complications, actual loss rate or associated factors, with a view to exploring both maternal and fetal factors in single and multiple pregnancies in two units of Latin American Fetal Maternal Medicine.

Key words: Amniocentesis, Chromosomopathies, Trisomy 21, Multiple pregnancies, Prenatal diagnosis.


  1. Parra M, Cruz M, Borobio V, Bennasar M, Goncé A, Martínez JM, y col. Amniocentesis: guía práctica. Diagnóstico Prenatal. 2014;25(1):20-7.

  2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling: NHS Evidence, accredited provider; June 2010;1-13.

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1459-67. DOI:10.1097/01. AOG.0000291570.63450.44

  4. García E, Cuadrado J, Azqueta B. Factores de riesgo para complicaciones en el embarazo tras amniocentesis genética. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2011;54(12):607-11.

  5. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, F. DA. Procedurerelated risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):16-26.

  6. Kollmann M, Haeusler M, Haas J, Csapo B, Lang U, Klaritsch P. Procedure-related complications after genetic amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34(4):345-8.

  7. Fernández L, Domínguez M, Ibañez J, Grether P, Aguinaga M. Indicaciones actuales para el diagnóstico prenatal invasivo. Nuevas propuestas basadas en la experiencia del Instituto Nacional de Perinatología. Ginecol Obstet Méx. 2013;81(8):454-60.

  8. Saldarriaga W, García HA, Arango J, Fonseca J. Karyotype versus genomic hybridization for the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(3):330.e1-10.

  9. Valayatham V, Subramaniam R, Juan YM, Chia P. Indications for invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures at a dedicated fetal medicine centre: an 8 year audit 2003-2010. Med J Malaysia. 2013;68(4):297-300.

  10. Lenis N, Sánchez M, Bello JC, Sagalá J, Campos N, Carreras E, et al. Amniocentesis and the risk of second trimester fetal loss in twin pregnancies: results from a prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(15):1537-41.

  11. Cruz M, Parra M, Borobio V, Bennasar M, Goncé A, Martínez JM, et al. How to perform an amniocentesis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(6):727-31.

  12. Minna T, Mika G, Tiina L, Marjo M, Sture A, Olavi Y, et al. Risk for placental abruption following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(4):410-2.

  13. Theodora M, Antsaklis A, Antsaklis P, Blanas K, Daskalakis G, Sindos M, et al. Fetal loss following second trimester amniocentesis. Who is at greater risk? How to counsel pregnant women? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(4):590-5.

  14. Munim S, Ismail H. Pregnancy loss rate following amniocentesis. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(6):545-7.

  15. Danisman N, Kahyaoglu S, Celen S, Kahyaoglu I, Candemir Z, Yesilyurt A, et al. A retrospective analysis of amniocenteses performed for advanced maternal age and various other indications in Turkish women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(3):242-5.

  16. Kong CW, Leung TN, Leung TY, Chan LW, Sahota DS, Fung TY, et al. Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26(10):925-30.

  17. Corrado F, Cannata ML, La Galia T, Magliarditi M, Imbruglia L, D'anna R, et al. Pregnancy outcome following mid-trimester amniocentesis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32(2):117-9.

  18. Vink J, Fuchs K, D'Alton ME. Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(5):409-16.

  19. Enzensberger C, Pulvermacher C, Degenhardt J, Kawecki A, Germer U, Weichert J, et al. Outcome after secondtrimester amniocentesis and first-trimester chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis in multiple gestations. Ultraschall Med. 2014;35(2):166-72.

  20. Agarwal K, Alfirevic Z. Pregnancy loss after chorionic villus sampling and genetic amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(2):128-34.

>Journals >Ginecología y Obstetricia de México >Year 2018, Issue 04

· Journal Index 
· Links 

Copyright 2019