Fowler D J, Lindsay I, Seckl M J, Sebire N J
Trophoblastic Disease Unit, Department of Cancer Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jan;29(1):76-80. doi: 10.1002/uog.3880.
The majority of partial (PHM) and complete (CHM) hydatidiform moles are diagnosed in early pregnancy. About half are identified as molar on ultrasonographic examination prior to evacuation. It is uncertain whether unsuspected cases represent an intrinsically different molar phenotype or are simply dependant on sonographer expertise. We measured a microscopic parameter, average villus diameter, of evacuated PHMs and CHMs to ascertain the cause of non-detection on ultrasound.
Fifty-four molar pregnancies were examined from the files of the Trophoblastic Disease Unit, in which results of an ultrasound examination prior to evacuation were known. In each, the average cross-sectional diameter of the largest 10 villi was recorded. Maximum villus diameters were compared between gestational age groups (<14 weeks and >or=14 weeks), and ultrasound detection groups (detected (d) and not detected (nd)).
The average maximum villus diameter of the largest hydropic villi was significantly less in the first trimester for both PHMs and CHMs that were undetected by ultrasound examination compared to those identified as molar sonographically (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in the maximum villus diameter between PHMs and CHMs that were not detected sonographically in the first trimester (P=0.44). Beyond 14 weeks of gestation, there was no significant difference between PHMs detected and undetected sonographically (P=0.88).
The average diameter of the largest, most hydropic villi, is significantly greater in cases of PHMs and CHMs detected by ultrasound examination in the first trimester compared to that of those not detected sonographically, but beyond 14 weeks such differences are minimal. These findings suggest that, although sonographer expertise could potentially increase ultrasound detection rates somewhat for PHMs and CHMs, a significant proportion of cases demonstrate minimal hydropic change in the first trimester and are therefore likely to remain unidentifiable by ultrasound examination prior to evacuation, even with improved sonographer expertise.
大多数部分性(PHM)和完全性(CHM)葡萄胎在妊娠早期被诊断出来。约一半在清宫术前通过超声检查被识别为葡萄胎。未被怀疑的病例是代表本质上不同的葡萄胎表型,还是仅仅取决于超声检查人员的专业水平,目前尚不确定。我们测量了清宫的部分性和完全性葡萄胎的一个微观参数——平均绒毛直径,以确定超声检查未发现的原因。
从滋养细胞疾病科的档案中检查了54例葡萄胎妊娠病例,这些病例在清宫术前的超声检查结果已知。在每例中,记录最大的10个绒毛的平均横截面积直径。比较了孕周组(<14周和≥14周)以及超声检测组(检测到(d)和未检测到(nd))之间的最大绒毛直径。
与超声检查识别为葡萄胎的病例相比,超声检查未发现的部分性和完全性葡萄胎在孕早期最大水泡状绒毛的平均最大直径显著更小(分别为P<0.001和P<0.001)。孕早期超声检查未发现的部分性和完全性葡萄胎之间的最大绒毛直径没有显著差异(P = 0.44)。妊娠14周后,超声检查检测到和未检测到的部分性葡萄胎之间没有显著差异(P = 0.88)。
与超声检查未发现的病例相比,孕早期超声检查检测到的部分性和完全性葡萄胎病例中最大、水泡最明显的绒毛平均直径显著更大,但在14周后这种差异最小。这些发现表明,尽管超声检查人员的专业水平可能会在一定程度上提高部分性和完全性葡萄胎的超声检测率,但相当一部分病例在孕早期水泡样改变极小,因此即使超声检查人员的专业水平提高,在清宫术前通过超声检查仍可能无法识别。