Brambati B, Oldrini A, Lanzani A, Terzian E, Tognoni G
Unità di Medicina Perinatale, Prima Clinica ostetrica e ginecologica, Università di Milano, Italy.
Hum Reprod. 1988 Aug;3(6):811-3. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136788.
Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is still considered to be an applied research method and its safety is under evaluation in randomized trials. Moreover, no knowledge is available about the comparative efficiency and risks of transcervical and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling. A preliminary analysis of the first 639 consecutive cases of an ongoing trial in which cases are randomized between transcervical and transabdominal aspiration techniques shows: (a) an overall sampling success rate of greater than 99% obtained by both techniques; however, the number of repeat insertions of the sampling device was higher for the transcervical route; (b) a significant shift towards lighter tissue samples for the transabdominal route; however, very light specimens, less than 10 mg, were equally distributed in both groups; and (c) approximately 10% of cases underwent a different procedure from the allocated one because of an anatomical or clinical contraindication, with a higher rate of deviation for the transcervical technique.
绒毛取样(CVS)仍被视为一种应用研究方法,其安全性正在随机试验中进行评估。此外,关于经宫颈和经腹绒毛取样的相对效率和风险尚无相关知识。对一项正在进行的试验中连续的前639例病例进行的初步分析显示,这些病例在经宫颈和经腹抽吸技术之间随机分组:(a)两种技术的总体取样成功率均超过99%;然而,经宫颈途径的取样装置重复插入次数更高;(b)经腹途径的组织样本明显更轻;然而,重量小于10mg的非常轻的样本在两组中分布均匀;(c)约10%的病例由于解剖学或临床禁忌而接受了与分配的程序不同的程序,经宫颈技术的偏差率更高。