medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2023, Number 03

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2023; 91 (03)

Clinical significance of prenatal diagnosis of chorionic bump in the first trimester screening

Martínez-Ceccopieri DA, Rodríguez-Sánchez JL, Acosta-Alcalde I, Hernández-Camarena RA, De la Torre-Poot MA, Fajardo-Dueñas S

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 155-165
PDF size: 345.44 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the clinical significance and obstetric and perinatal outcome after detection of a chorionic protrusion in the first trimester screening study.
Materials and Methods: Prospective cohort study performed in patients referred for first trimester screening to a third level referral Fetal Medicine and Surgery unit (Prenatalia Medicina Fetal San Javier, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico) from April 2019 to December 2021. Patients with craniocaudal length measurements between 45 and 84 mm during first-trimester prenatal screening were included. Ultrasound findings were reported, relevant clinical information and data were obtained from electronic records, and the treating obstetrician-gynecologist and patients were contacted when necessary. Descriptive statistics with measures of central tendency and dispersion were used. For comparative analysis, 2 and Mann Whitney U were used to contrast differences between groups.
Results: 1359 pregnancies were evaluated and chorionic protrusion was documented in 19 of them. In 9 of 19 cases it was associated with first trimester bleeding prior to ultrasound examination. Chorionic protrusion was found to be larger than 10 mm in 16 out of 19 cases. In addition, the protrusion was associated with episodes of threatened preterm labour in 13 of 19 cases.
Conclusions: Chorionic protrusion is a rare finding during first trimester screening that is associated with bleeding and episodes of threatened preterm labour.


REFERENCES

  1. Harris RD, Couto C, Karpovsky C, et al. The chorionic bump:a first-trimester pregnancy sonographic finding associatedwith a guarded prognosis. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25 (6):757-763. doi: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.757

  2. Carvalho R, Osório M, Brito C, et al. Case Report: Chorionicbump in a pregnant patient with a history of infertility.BMJ Case Rep 2018; 1-3. doi:10.1136/ bcr-2018-225091

  3. Yousaf A, Tayyab A, Sana M, et al. Chorionic bump: radiologicfeatures and pregnancy outcomes. Cureus 2020; 12(11): e11480. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11480

  4. Sana Y, Appiah AA, Davison A, et al. Clinical significance offirst-trimester chorionic bumps: a matched case-controlstudy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 585-89. doi:10.1002/uog.12528

  5. Silva M, Sepúlveda A, Guínez R, et al. Chorionic bump: anearly ultrasound marker for adverse obstetric outcome. GynecolObstet Investigation 2018. doi: 10.1159/000493477.

  6. Sepulveda W: Chorionic bump at 11 to 13 weeks' gestation:prevalence and clinical significance. Prenatal Diagnosis2019; 39: 471-76. doi: 10.1002/pd.5454.

  7. Tan S, Ipek A, Sivashoglu A, et al. Case Report: The chorionicbump: radiologic and pathologic correlation. J ClinUltrasound 2011; 39 (1): 35-37. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20755

  8. Baalmaan C, Galgano S, Pietryga J, et al. A case of a chorionicbump: new sonographic-histopathologic findings withreview of the literature. J Ultrasound Med 2017; 1-3. doi:10.1002/jum.14240

  9. Kagan-Arleo E, Troiano RN, et al. Chorionic bump on firsttrimestersonography: not necessarily a poor prognosticindicator for pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2015; 34 (1):137-42. doi: 10.7863/ultra.34.1.137

  10. Wax J, Cartin A, Litton C, et al. First-trimester chorionic bump--association with fetal aneuploidy in a high-risk population.J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45: 3-7. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22417

  11. Kagan-Arleo E, Dunning A, Troiano R. Chorionic bump inpregnant patients and associated live birth rate: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med 2015;34: 553-57. doi:10.7863/ultra.34.4.553

  12. Lu Y, Wu Y, Huang F, et al. A single-center retrospectivestudy of the clinical significance of chorionic bump at earlystage of gestation. Am J Reprod Immunol 2020; 1-6. doi:10.1111/aji.13346

  13. The Fetal Medicine Foundation. The 11-13 weeks scan.https://fetalmedicine.org/education/the 11-13-weeks-scan.

  14. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Bilardo CM, et al. ISUOG Practiceguidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasoundscan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (1): 102-113.doi: 10.1002/uog.12342

  15. Bhide A, Acharya G, Baschat A, et al. ISUOG Practice guidelines(updated): use of Doppler velocimetry in obstetrics.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 58 (2): 331-39. doi:10.1002/uog.23698

  16. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Cohort studies: marching towardsoutcomes. Lancet 2002; 359 (9303): 341-45. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07500-1

  17. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designingclinical research: An epidemiological approach. 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001; 1-336.

  18. Pineles BL, Hsu S, Park E, et al. Systematic review andmeta-analyses of perinatal death and maternal exposureto tobacco smoke during pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol 2016;184 (2): 87-97. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv301

  19. Al-Melmar M, Vaulet T, Fourie H, et al. First-trimesterintrauterine hematoma and pregnancy complications.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55: 536-45. doi: 10.1002/uog.20861




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com