Prevalence of anomalies on the routine mid-trimester ultrasound: 3172 consecutive cases by a single maternal–fetal medicine specialist

Colin A. Walsh, Nicole Lees
{"title":"Prevalence of anomalies on the routine mid-trimester ultrasound: 3172 consecutive cases by a single maternal–fetal medicine specialist","authors":"Colin A. Walsh,&nbsp;Nicole Lees","doi":"10.1002/ajum.12369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction/Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The routine mid-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound (FAS) is offered to every pregnant woman and remains critical in the detection of structural fetal anomalies. Our study aimed to determine the prevalence of abnormalities on routine FAS performed by a single operator, who is an experienced sub-specialist in maternal–fetal medicine.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis of all routine FAS performed a tertiary private obstetric ultrasound practice in metropolitan Sydney over a 7-year period, August 2015–July 2022. An advanced ultrasound protocol including detailed cardiac views was used in every case. Second opinion scans for suspected abnormalities were excluded. Fetal anomalies were classified into major and minor, based on the likely need for neonatal intervention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 14,908 obstetric ultrasound examinations, routine FAS were performed on 3172 fetuses by a single operator. More than 99% of women had screened low-risk for fetal aneuploidy. Structural anomalies were identified in 5% (157/3172) of fetuses; the prevalence of major anomalies was 1% (30/3172). Almost 60% of total anomalies were either cardiac or renal. No differences were identified in anomaly rates for singletons compared with twins (5.0% vs. 4.2%; P = 0.75). The prevalence of placenta previa and vasa previa was 10% and 0.1%, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>The prevalence of fetal anomalies on routine FAS by a single operator using a standardised protocol was higher in our practice (5%) than in previously published studies. Although most anomalies were minor, the rate of major abnormality was 1%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The routine mid-trimester FAS remains an integral component of prenatal ultrasound screening.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36517,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":"12-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajum.12369","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/Purpose

The routine mid-trimester fetal anatomy ultrasound (FAS) is offered to every pregnant woman and remains critical in the detection of structural fetal anomalies. Our study aimed to determine the prevalence of abnormalities on routine FAS performed by a single operator, who is an experienced sub-specialist in maternal–fetal medicine.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all routine FAS performed a tertiary private obstetric ultrasound practice in metropolitan Sydney over a 7-year period, August 2015–July 2022. An advanced ultrasound protocol including detailed cardiac views was used in every case. Second opinion scans for suspected abnormalities were excluded. Fetal anomalies were classified into major and minor, based on the likely need for neonatal intervention.

Results

Among 14,908 obstetric ultrasound examinations, routine FAS were performed on 3172 fetuses by a single operator. More than 99% of women had screened low-risk for fetal aneuploidy. Structural anomalies were identified in 5% (157/3172) of fetuses; the prevalence of major anomalies was 1% (30/3172). Almost 60% of total anomalies were either cardiac or renal. No differences were identified in anomaly rates for singletons compared with twins (5.0% vs. 4.2%; P = 0.75). The prevalence of placenta previa and vasa previa was 10% and 0.1%, respectively.

Discussion

The prevalence of fetal anomalies on routine FAS by a single operator using a standardised protocol was higher in our practice (5%) than in previously published studies. Although most anomalies were minor, the rate of major abnormality was 1%.

Conclusion

The routine mid-trimester FAS remains an integral component of prenatal ultrasound screening.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
常规中期妊娠超声波检查中异常情况的发生率:一位母胎医学专家连续检查 3172 个病例
常规中期胎儿解剖超声检查(FAS)是为每位孕妇提供的检查项目,它对检测胎儿结构异常至关重要。我们的研究旨在确定由一名经验丰富的母胎医学亚专科医生担任操作员的常规胎儿解剖超声检查中异常情况的发生率。每个病例都采用了先进的超声检查方案,包括详细的心脏视图。疑似异常的第二意见扫描被排除在外。在14908例产科超声检查中,由一名操作员对3172个胎儿进行了常规FAS检查。超过 99% 的妇女接受了低风险胎儿非整倍体筛查。5%(157/3172)的胎儿结构异常;重大异常的发生率为 1%(30/3172)。近 60% 的畸形为心脏或肾脏畸形。单胎与双胞胎的异常率没有差异(5.0% 对 4.2%;P = 0.75)。在我们的临床实践中,单个操作者使用标准化方案进行常规FAS检查时,胎儿畸形的发生率(5%)高于之前发表的研究。虽然大多数畸形是轻微的,但重大畸形的发生率为1%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The impact of ultrasound imaging on patient management – Let's practice the evidence EUS‐guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions—The optimal technique still remains undecided Ultrasound‐assisted and landmark‐based nusinersen delivery in spinal muscular atrophy adults: A retrospective analysis Cutaneous ultrasound in the diagnosis and assessment of inflammatory activity in tinea capitis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1