American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 201, Issue 6 , Pages 593.e1-593.e3, December 2009

Amniovacucentesis vs standard syringe technique for amniocentesis: experience with 1219 cases

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Medical School, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Received 11 November 2008; received in revised form 12 April 2009; accepted 4 June 2009. published online 10 August 2009.

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare amniovacucentesis to the usual syringe use for amniotic fluid aspiration.

Study Design

We compared 2 groups of procedures: 1117 amniocenteses performed with the usual syringe technique and 1219 amniovacucenteses.

Results

The numbers of needle insertions, unsuccessful amniocyte cultures, and miscarriage up to 21 days after the procedure were statistically not significant (P > .01) comparing the 2 techniques.

Conclusion

The vacuum tube serves as an automated aspiration tool alternative. The major subjective differences between the 2 methods are the operator's comfort and dexterity during sampling and the absence of an extra manipulation of the amniotic fluid after aspiration.

Key words: amniocentesis, automatic aspiration, instrumentation, methods, prenatal diagnosis, vacuum tube

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Cite this article as: Calda P, Brestak M. Amniovacucentesis vs standard syringe technique for amniocentesis: experience with 1219 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:593.e1-3.

PII: S0002-9378(09)00645-0

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.023

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 201, Issue 6 , Pages 593.e1-593.e3, December 2009