Results could be explained by misinterpretation of macroscopic appearances
- Michael Jarmulowicz, Consultant histopathologist
- Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London NW3 2QG
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX
EDITOR—I have serious doubts about the validity of the data reported by Blanch et al on embryonic abnormalities at medical termination of pregnancy.1 In my experience, embryos are delicate and can be readily disrupted even during careful handling. Although the authors state that “strict criteria were used to distinguish structural abnormalities from traumatic damage,” they give no details of these criteria and whether they have been generally accepted as distinguishing between trauma and abnormality in delicate embryonic tissue. I believe that it is important to specify in how many cases traumatic damage was seen.
Although Blanch et al state that macroscopically abnormal embryos were further examined histologically, they do not report the histological findings and I was surprised that a pathologist was not included as an author. Were all the neural tube and abdominal wall defects confirmed histologically? It is easy to envisage how compression of a delicate embryo during delivery might induce rupture of both the abdomen and central nervous system.
An anembryonic pregnancy rate of 23% (48 in 206 cases) before 9 weeks of pregnancy is high in comparison with the rate of 16% found in a study of 38 abnormal early pregnancies2 and that of 1% in an ultrasound study of 17 820 normal pregnancies (albeit 10-13 weeks' gestation).3 Such a discrepancy must be explained.
I believe that the unexpected finding of a 34% non-viable pregnancy rate can be explained by misinterpretation of macroscopic appearances.
Authors' reply
- Siobhan Quenby, Lecturer,
- Geraldine Blanch, Senior registrar,
- James Neilson, Professor of obstetrics and gynaecology
- Department of Histopathology, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London NW3 2QG
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX
EDITOR—Most (80%) of the embryos that we examined were delivered within intact gestation sacs, protected from trauma by the amniotic fluid and membranes, and without any sign of tissue disruption macroscopically, microscopically, or histologically. In the 20% of pregnancies in which the gestation sac had ruptured during abortion we used strict histological criteria to distinguish structural abnormalities from traumatic damage. Three investigators studied each embryo independently before a classification was determined; when a neural tube defect was suspected on macroscopic inspection, the periderm (future dermis) was examined meticulously and the embryo was classed as having a neural tube defect only if the skin surface was continuous with the developing neural tissue; abdominal wall defects were diagnosed only if there were loops of bowel outside the abdominal wall before Carnegie stage 16 or if other intra-abdominal organs such as the liver were outside the abdominal wall and if the edge of the periderm was histologically rounded rather than ragged.
Anembryonic pregnancy was diagnosed only when the gestation sac was intact. We found an incidence of 33 out of 206 (16%). This is identical with the rate of anembryonic pregnancy quoted by Alcazar et al.1 In our study, the pregnancies were 6-9 weeks' gestation. The discrepancy between the anembryonic pregnancy rate in our study and that in the study by Pandya et al (1%)2 can be explained by the fact that most anembryonic pregnancies would have ended in miscarriage by 10-13 weeks' gestation in the other study.
We are confident that our methods did not overestimate the incidence of pregnancy abnormality.
References
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012