Ultraschall Med 2023; 44(03): 269-279
DOI: 10.1055/a-2014-4505
Guidelines & Recommendations

Empfehlungen der DEGUM zu diagnostischen Punktionen in der Pränatalmedizin

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Christiane Kähler
1   Obst Gyn, Prenatal Medicine Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany
,
Renaldo Faber 
2   Leipzig, Center of Prenatal Medicine, Leipzig, Germany
,
Annegret Geipel
3   Department of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany
,
Kai-Sven Heling
4   Obst Gyn, Prenatal Diagnosis and Human Genetics, Berlin, Germany
,
Karl-Oliver Kagan
5   Prenatal Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany
,
Peter Kozlowski
6   Prenatal Medicine and Human Genetics, praenatal.de, Duesseldorf, Germany
,
Thomas Schramm
7   Ultrasound, Prenatal Medicine Munich, Muenchen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Diagnostische Punktionen (Amniozentese, Chorionzottenbiopsie und Fetalblutentnahme) sind ein wesentlicher Bestandteil der Pränataldiagnostik und die einzige etablierte und wissenschaftlich ausreichend evaluierte Möglichkeit der Diagnostik genetischer Erkrankungen aus schwangerschaftsspezifischen Zellen. Die Anzahl diagnostischer Punktionen in Deutschland ist, wie in anderen Ländern, deutlich gesunken. Dies ist maßgeblich auf die Einführung des Ersttrimester-Screenings mit weiterführender detaillierter Ultraschalluntersuchung des Fetus und die Analyse von cf-DNA (cell-free DNA) aus maternalem Blut (sogenannter „Nicht Invasiver Pränataler Test“ – NIPT) zurückzuführen. Andererseits sind die Erkenntnisse über die Inzidenz und das Erscheinungsbild genetischer Erkrankungen gestiegen. Die Entwicklung moderner molekulargenetischer Techniken (Mikroarray- und Exom-Analyse) macht eine differenzierte Untersuchung dieser Erkrankungen mehr und mehr möglich. Die Anforderungen an Aufklärung und Beratung über diese komplexen Zusammenhänge sind dadurch wesentlich höher geworden. Die Studien der letzten Jahre machen deutlich, dass diagnostische Punktionen, die in Expertenzentren durchgeführt werden, mit einem niedrigen Risiko für Komplikationen assoziiert sind. Insbesondere der eingriffsbedingte Abort unterscheidet sich kaum vom Hintergrundrisiko für einen Spontanabort. Die Sektion Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin (DEGUM) hat im Jahr 2013 Empfehlungen zu diagnostischen Punktionen in der Pränatalmedizin publiziert [1]. Die oben geschilderten Entwicklungen und neuen Erkenntnisse der letzten Jahre machen eine Revision und Neuformulierung dieser Empfehlungen nötig. Ziel dieser Übersicht ist eine Zusammenstellung wichtiger und aktueller Fakten zu pränatalmedizinischen Punktionen (u.a. Technik, Komplikationen, genetische Untersuchungen). Sie soll der grundlegenden umfassenden und aktuellen Information über diagnostische Punktionen in der Pränatalmedizin dienen. Sie ersetzt die Publikation von 2013 [1].



Publication History

Received: 30 November 2022

Accepted after revision: 20 December 2022

Article published online:
07 March 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kähler C, Gembruch U, Heling KS. et al. Guidelines for Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling. Ultraschall in Med 2013; 34: 435-440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G. et al. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 16-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wulff CB, Gerds TA, Rode L. et al. and the Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group. Risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first-trimester screening for Down syndrome: a national cohort of 147 987 singleton pregnancies Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 47: 38-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Beta J, Zhang W, Geris S. et al. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54: 452-457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB. et al. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54: 442-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kozlowski P, Burkhardt T, Gembruch U. et al. DEGUM, ÖGUM, SGUM and FMF Germany. Recommendations for the Implementation of First-Trimester Screening, Detailed Ultrasound, Cell-Free DNA Screening and Diagnostic Procedures. Ultraschall in Med 2019; 40: 176-193
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 ISUOG Practice Guidelines. invasive procedures for prenatal diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 256-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on Procedure Related Risks for Prenatal Diagnosis Techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vogel I, Tabor A, Ekelund C. et al. The Danish Fetal Medicine Study Group, and the Danish Cytogenetic Study Group. Population-Based Screening for Trisomies and Atypical Chromosomal Abnormalities: Improving Efficacy using the Combined First Trimester Screening Algorithm as well as Individual Risk Parameters. Fetal Diagn Ther 2018; 10: 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bornstein E, Gulersen M, Krantz D. et al. Microarray analysis: First-trimester maternal serum free β-hCG and the risk of significant copy number variants. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38: 971-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Von Kaisenberg C, Chaoui R, Häusler M. et al. Quality Requirements for early Fetal Ultrasound Assessment at 11– 13+6 Weeks of Gestation (DEGUM Levels II and III). Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37: 297-302
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Karim J, Roberts NW, Salomon LJ. et al. Systematic review of first-trimester ultrasound screening for detection of fetal structural anomalies and factors that affect screening performance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 429-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shaffer LG, Rosenfeld JA, Dabell MP. et al. Detection rates of clinically significant genomic alterations by microarray analysis for specific anomalies detected by ultrasound. Prenat Diagn 2012; 32: 986-995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Donnelly JC, Platt LD, Rebarber A. et al. Association of copy number variants with specific ultrasonographically detected fetal anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124: 83-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ferreira JC, Grati FR, Bajaj K. et al. Frequency of fetal karyotype abnormalities in women undergoing invasive testing in the absence of ultrasound and other high-risk indications. Prenat Diagn 2016; 36: 1146-1155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Microarrays and next-generation sequencing technologies: the use of advanced genetic diagnostic tools in obstetrics and gynecology. Committee Opinion No. 682. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128: e262-e268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B. et al. Chromosomal Microarray versus Karyotyping. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175-2184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Held KR, Zahn S. Pränataler ARRAY – Indikationen, Bewertung. Med Gen 2014; 26: 398-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine: The Use of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis. Committee Opinion No 581 2013; 1374-1377 DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000438962.16108.d1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Callaway J, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS. et al. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 1119-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Petersen O, Vogel I, Ekelund C. et al. Potenzial diagnostic consequences of applying non-invasive prenatal testing: population-based study from a country with existing first-trimester screening. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 265-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tørring N, Petersen OB, Uldbjerg N. Ten years of experience with first trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy employing biochemistry from gestational weeks 6+0 to 13+6. Fetal Diagn Ther 2015; 37: 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Grande M, Jansen FA, Blumenfeld YJ. et al. Genomic microarray in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency and normal karyotype: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46: 650-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lund CN, ChristensenRPetersen O. et al. Chromosomal microarray in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 95-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Maya I, Yacobson S, Kahana S. et al. Cut-off value of nuchal translucency as indication for chromosomal microarray analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50: 332-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gosden C, Tabor A, Leck I. et al. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. In: Wald N, Leck I. Antenatal and Neonatal Screening. London: Oxford University Press; 2000: 470-517
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Fryburg JS, Dimaio MS, Yang-Feng TL. et al. Follow-up of pregnancies complicated by placental mosaicism diagnosed by chorionic villus sampling. Prenatal Diagnosis 1993; 13: 481-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tyson RW. Chromosomal abnormalities in stillbirth and neonatal death. In: Dimmick JE, Kalousek DK. Developmental pathology of the embryo and fetus. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1992: 103-109
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Wilkins-Haug L, Quade B, Morton CC. Confined placental mosaicism as a risk factor among newborns with fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 28-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Amor DJ, Neo WT, Waters E. et al. Health and developmental outcome of children following prenatal diagnosis of confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 443-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Miura K, Yoshiura K, Miura S. et al. Clinical outcome of infants with confined placental mosaicism and intrauterine growth restriction of unknown cause. Am J Med Genet A 2006; 17: 1827-1833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Grati FR, Ferreira J, Benn P. et al. Outcomes in pregnancies with a confined placental mosaicism and implications for prenatal screening using cell-free DNA. Genet Med 2020; 22: 309-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Grati FR, Malvestiti F, Branca L. et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in the fetoplacental unit. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 42: 39-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Alfirevic Z, Navaratnam K, Mujezinovic F. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017; 9 (09) CD003252 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003252.pub2.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sikovanyecz J, Horvath E, Sallay E. et al. Fetomaternal transfusion and pregnancy outcome after cordocentesis. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16: 83-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tangshewinsirikul C, Wanapirak C, Piyamongkol W. et al. Effect of cord puncture site in cordocentesis at mid-pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 861-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Vayssière C, Benoist G, Blondel B. et al. Twin pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 156: 12-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cederholm M, Haglund B, Axelsson O. Maternal complications following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal karyotyping. BJOG 2003; 110: 392-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Homola W, Mariusz Zimmer M. Do lifestyle factors influence the rate of complications after amniocentesis?. Adv Clin Exp Med 2019; 28: 1339-1334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Seeds JW. Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: How safe?. Am J Obst Gynecol 2004; 191: 608e16 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.078.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Odibo AO, Gray DL, Dicke JM. et al. Revisiting the Fetal Loss Rate After Second-Trimester Genetic Amniocentesis. A Single Center’s16-YearExperience. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 589-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Papi L, Farusi F, Teti G. et al. Cutaneous foetal injuries related to amniocentesis. J Wound Care 2013; 22: 23-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Vilar Coromina N, Vicente Villa A, Puigarnau Vallhonrat R. et al. Skin dumpling: a complication of amniocentesis. An Pediatr (Barc) 2007; 66: 407-409
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Devlieger R, Millar LK, Bryant-Greenwood G. et al. Fetal membrane healing after spontaneous and iatrogenic membrane rupture: A review of current evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1512-1520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Borgida AF, Mills AA, Feldman DM. et al. Outcome of pregnancies complicated by ruptured membranes after genetic amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 937-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Dugoff L, Cuckle HS, Hobbins JC. et al. FASTER Trial Research Consortium. Prediction of patient-specific risk for fetal loss using maternal characteristics and first- and second-trimester maternal serum Down syndrome markers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 290-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kozlowski P, Knippel P, Stressig R. Individual Risk of Fetal Loss Following Routine Second Trimester Amniocentesis: A Controlled Study of 20460 Cases. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 165-172
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Akolekar R, Bower S, Flack N. et al. Prediction of miscarriage and stillbirth at 11–13 weeks and the contribution of chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L. et al. Pregnancy Loss Rates After Midtrimester Amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1067-1072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Gil MM, Molina FS, Rodríguez-Fernández M. et al. New approach for estimating risk of miscarriage after chorionic villus sampling. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 656-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 162: Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127: 976-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 From the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. Midtrimester amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Safety and accuracy. JAMA 1976; 236: 1471-1476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 [Anonym]. An assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis. Report to the Medical Research Council by their Working Party on Amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978; 85: 1-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Simpson NE, Dallaire L, Miller JR. et al. Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease in Canada: report of a collaborative study. Can Med Assoc J 1976; 115: 739-748
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M. et al. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1: 1287-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Berry SM, Stone J, Norton ME. et al. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), Fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 170-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Enzensberger C, Pulvermacher C, Degenhardt J. et al. Fetal loss rate and associated risk factors after amniocentesis, chorion villus sampling and fetal blood sampling. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: E75-E79
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Nanal R, Kyle P, Soothill PW. A classification of pregnancy losses after invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: an approach to allow comparison of units with a different case mix. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 488-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Wilson RD, Gagnon A, Audibert F. et al. Genetics Committee. Prenatal Diagnosis Procedures and Techniques to Obtain a Diagnostic Fetal Specimen or Tissue: Maternal and Fetal Risks and Benefits. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015; 37: 656-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Tanvisut R, Wanapirak C, Piyamongkol W. et al. Cordocentesis-associated fetal loss and risk factors: single-center experience with 6650 cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 664-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Lenis-Cordoba N, Sanchez MA, Bello-Munoz JC. 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: 1537-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Di Mascio D, Khalil A, Rizzo G. et al. Risk of fetal loss following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 647-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Dechnunthapiphat R, Sekararithi R, Tongsong T. et al. Comparisons of pregnancy outcomes between twin pregnancies with and without second-trimester amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 2020; 40: 1330-1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Yukobowich E, Anteby EY, Cohen SM. et al. Risk of Fetal Loss in Twin Pregnancies Undergoing Second Trimester Amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 231-234
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Agarwal K, Alfirevic Z. Pregnancy Loss after Chorionic Villus Sampling and Genetic Amniocentesis in Twin Pregnancies- a Systematic Review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Cahill AG, Macones GA, Stamilio DM. et al. Pregnancy loss rate after midtrimester amniocentesis in twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 257.e1-257.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Enzensberger C, Pulvermacher C, Degenhardt J. et al. Outcome after second trimester amniocentesis and first trimester chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis in multiple gestations. Ultraschall in Med 2014; 35: 166-172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Elger T, Akolekar R, Syngelaki A. et al. Fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 58: 48-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Gil M, Rodríguez-Fernández M, Elger T. et al. Risk of fetal loss after chorionic villus sampling in twin pregnancy derived from propensity score matching analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 59: 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Simonazzi G, Curti A, Farina A. et al. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling in twin gestations: which is the best sampling technique?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; a202: 365.e1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Krispin E, Wertheimer A, Trigerman S. et al. Single or double needle insertion in twins amniocentesis: Dos the technique influence the risk of complication?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 2019; 15: 100051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Hill LM, Platt LD, Kellogg B. Rh sensitization after genetic amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 1980; 56: 459-461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Kristensen S, Nørgaard LN, Tabor A. et al. Do chorionic villus samplings (CVS) or amniocenteses (AC) induce RhD immunisation? An evaluation of a large Danish cohort with no routine administration of anti-D after invasive prenatal testing. BJOG 2019; 126: 1476-1480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Marthin T, Liedgren S, Hammar M. Transplacental needle passage and other risk-factors associated with second trimester amniocentesis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 728-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Hui L, Muggli E, Halliday JL. Population-based trends in prenatal screening and diagnosis for aneuploidy: a retrospective analysis of 38 years of state-wide data. BJOG 2016; 123: 90-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Alfirevic Z. Who should be allowed to perform amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 12-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Leschot NJ, Verjaal M, Treffers PE. Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis: assessment in 3,000 pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 804-807
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Wijnberger LD, van der Schouw YT, Christiaens GC. Learning in medicine: chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 241-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Tabor A, Vestergaard CHF, Lidegaard Ø. Fetal loss rate after chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: an 11 – year national registry study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 34: 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Nizard J, Duyme M, Ville Y. Teaching ultrasound- guided invasive procedures in fetal medicine: learning curves with and without an electronic guidance system. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 274-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Amniocentesis and Chorion Villus Sampling, Green-top Guideline No8; . 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar