Skip to main content
Download PDF

Fetal congenital gastrointestinal obstruction: prenatal diagnosis of chromosome microarray analysis and pregnancy outcomes

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 503 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of chromosome anomalies in different types of congenital gastrointestinal obstruction and assess pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction.

Methods

A total of 64 cases with gastrointestinal obstruction between January 2014 and December 2020 were enrolled in this study. They were divided into three groups according to sonographic images. Group A: isolated upper gastrointestinal obstruction; Group B: isolated lower gastrointestinal obstruction; Group C: non-isolated gastrointestinal obstruction. The rate of chromosome anomalies in different groups was calculated. Pregnant women with amniocentesis were followed up by medical records and telephone. The follow-up included pregnancy outcomes and development of the live born infants.

Result

From January 2014 to December 2020, there were 64 fetus with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction underwent chromosome microarray analysis(CMA), the overall detection rate of CMA testing was 14.1%(9/64). The detection rate of Group A, B and C were 16.2%, 0 and 25.0% respectively. 9 fetuses with abnormal CMA results were all terminated. Among 55 fetuses with normal chromosomes, 10(18.2%) fetuses were not found to have any gastrointestinal obstruction after birth. 17(30.9%) fetuses were diagnosed with gastrointestinal obstruction and underwent surgical treatment after birth, one of which had lower gastrointestinal obstruction combined with biliary obstruction and died due to liver cirrhosis. 11(20.0%) pregnancy were terminated due to multiple abnormalities. 5(9.1%) fetuses were intrauterine death. 3(5.5%) fetuses were neonatal deaths. 9(16.4%) fetuses were lost to follow-up.

Conclusion

It is crucial to understand whether the gastrointestinal tract abnormality is isolated or associated to other findings. The risk of chromosomal abnormalities in fetuses with isolated lower gastrointestinal obstruction is lower than upper gastrointestinal obstruction. While genetic abnormalities excluded, a promising prognosis is expected for fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Congenital gastrointestinal obstruction is a common digestive tract malformation in neonates, with an incidence of 0.7–4.2 per 10,000 live births [1,2,3]. Congenital gastrointestinal obstruction may have some ultrasound features during pregnancy and the most common is the “double bubble” sign. As fetal gastrointestinal tract(GIT) is the main rout to absorb amniotic fluid, polyhydramnios were often observed in fetus with gastrointestinal obstruction [4, 5]. These ultrasound phenotype of fetal gastrointestinal obstruction is usually detected in second or third trimester [6]. Genetic abnormalities, embryonic teratogens and infection are suspected as high risk factors associated with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction.

Previous studies find that gastrointestinal obstruction was noticed in 3–5% trisomy 21 [7, 8]. Other microdeletions, such as 17q12 deletion and 4q22.3 deletion, have been reported in fetus with gastrointestinal obstruction [4, 9]. However, the data on the incidence of genetic findings in fetus with gastrointestinal obstruction was limited. Moreover, researches on the outcome of these babies after birth were rare.

To promote data based genetic counseling, we investigated the incidence of chromosome anomalies in different types of congenital gastrointestinal obstruction, followed by evaluating the pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction.

Materials and methods

Subjects

From January 2014 to December 2020, 64 fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction suggested by ultrasound were tested by chromosome microarray analysis(CMA). The sample types included amniocytes or products of conception (POC) if the pregnancy was terminated before genetic testing. Parental peripheral blood samples were obtained along with fetal samples. Our study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Nanjing Drum Town Hospital (No.2019–084-01). All participants signed informed consent.

Group

They were divided into three groups according to sonographic images. Group A: isolated upper gastrointestinal obstruction; Group B: isolated lower gastrointestinal obstruction; Group C: non-isolated gastrointestinal obstruction.

DNA extraction and CMA

Genomic DNA was extracted from amniotic fluid cells with Biochain Amniotic Fluid Genomic DNA Kit (BioChain Institute, Hayward, CA), from POC samples with QIAamp® DNA Mini kit (Qiagen, Inc., Hilden, Germany), and from peripheral blood with QIAamp® DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Inc., Hilden, Germany). Seven short tandem repeat loci with high polymorphism, including D2S1338、D21S11、D7S820、D13S317、D16S539、D18S51 and AMXY gene, were selected to identify maternal blood contamination by linkage analysis [10]. CMA was performed using the ThermoFisher CytoScan platform. All DNA samples were digested, amplified, fragmented, labeled and hybridized to CytoScan 750 K chips according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Raw data were analyzed by ChAS 3.1 software (ThermoFisher, USA).

Interpretation of the copy number variations(CNVs) was defined according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines [11]. In our study, variants of unknown clinical significance (VOUS) were further tested by quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction(PCR). If it was constitutive in phenotypically normal parent, the CNV was classified as “normal” [10].

Genetic counseling and follow-up

Detailed genetic counseling was offered to all of the couples. Sixty-two pregnant women with amniocentesis were followed up by medical records and telephone. The clinical follow-up included pregnancy outcomes and development of the surviving infants at least one year old.

Results

Sixty-four singleton fetuses diagnosed with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction were enrolled between January 2014 and December 2020. The typical ultrasound images of congenital gastrointestinal obstruction were shown in Fig. 1. In our study, the gestational ages for diagnosing congenital gastrointestinal obstruction ranged from 23 to 36 weeks. The numbers of Group A, Group B and Group C were 37, 15 and 12 respectively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Representative prenatal ultrasound images from cases in the study. A Prenatal sonographic evaluation demonstrated a typical fetal double-bubble signal (black triangle: stomach, arrow: duodenum); B Coronal plane of intestinal dilatation (arrow: dilated bowel); C Cross section of intestinal dilation (arrow: dilated bowel)

Full size image

CMA results

Among the 64 cases, we found four cases of trisomy 21, three cases with pathogenic CNVs and two cases with both chromosome microdeletion and microduplication. The overall detection rate of CMA testing for fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction was 14.1% (9/64).

In Group A, the rate of pathogenic findings was 16.2% (6/37), including four cases of trisomy 21, one case with pathogenic CNVs and one case with both chromosome microdeletion and microduplication. In Group B, no genomic abnormalities were found. In Group C, the rate of pathogenic findings was 25.0% (3/12), including two cases with pathogenic CNVs and one case with both chromosome microdeletion and microduplication. These results are presented in Fig. 2, Tables 1 and 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Number of chromosome results in three groups

Full size image
Table 1 Chromosome results of fetuses in three groups
Full size table
Table 2 Pathogenic CNVs findings in fetuses with suspected gastrointestinal obstruction
Full size table

Pregnancy outcomes and follow-up

The follow-up results of 64 fetuses with prenatal ultrasound indications of gastrointestinal obstruction include 27 live births, 3 neonatal deaths, 25 termination of pregnancy (TOP), and 9 lost to follow-up. Among 27 live births, 10 cases were not found to have gastrointestinal obstruction and the postpartum imaging was normal. 17 fetuses were diagnosed with gastrointestinal obstruction and underwent surgical treatment after birth. One of them had lower gastrointestinal obstruction combined with biliary obstruction died due to liver cirrhosis. Among three neonatal deaths, one case was esophageal atresia and two cases were unknown reason. 25 fetuses were TOP, including nine cases with chromosomal anomalies/pathogenic CNVs and 16 cases with negative CMA results (5 stillbirths, 8 induction of labor and 3 POC).

The statistics of the CMA results and fetal outcomes are summarized in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Analysis of pregnancy outcomes among three groups with normal chromosomes

Full size image

Discussion

Joint Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC)-Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) recommendations suggested that CMA should be applied to fetuses with structural abnormalities [12]. CMA is recommended as a first-tier technology for prenatal diagnosis of congenital gastrointestinal obstruction. In our group, 6.3%(4/64) fetuses were diagnosed as trisomy 21. This was slightly lower than previous studies [12, 13]. This may due to application of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and improvement in ultrasonography. Additionally, submicroscopic CNVs were detected in 7.8% cases. The incidence is similar to Zhang WW’s findings [13]. The CNV findings in our study included 17q12 duplication syndrome, Williams syndrome (WS), 4p16 deletion, both 4p16 deletion and 10q duplication, both 4p16.3 duplication and 12p13.33–13.31 deletion.

Case 1, a fetus with duodenal atresia and polyhydramnios, had a 1.42 Mb duplication in chromosome 17q12. Duplication of this segment can lead to 17q12 duplication syndrome. The 17q12 duplication syndrome has mainly been proposed to include autism, behavioral abnormalities, structural brain abnormalities, learning disability, epilepsy, renal disease, atresia, and endocrine abnormalities [14,15,16]. Among the effected genes is HNF1B. Overexpression of HNF1B is associated with annular pancreas(AP) [17]. Although the overexpression of HNF1B has not been demonstrated to be directly associated with duodenal atresia, AP results in the pancreatic tissue completely or incompletely surrounding the duodenum leading to duodenal obstruction. Maria Rasmussen et al. [18] reported a patient with 17q12 duplication syndrome who was suspected “duodenal atresia” prenatally, but it was not mentioned whether the patient has been diagnosis with AP. It was a pity that autopsy was refused by the parents in our study. More researches are needed to clarify whether duodenal atresia is constitutional phenotype of 17q12 duplication or only an incidental finding.

Case 2 was a fetus with “double bubble” sign, polyhydramnios and fetal growth restriction (FGR). CMA revealed a 1.8 Mb 7q11.23 deletion, also known as Williams Syndrome (WS). This is a multisystem disorder, including but not limited to cardiovascular disease, a distinctive craniofacial appearance, and a specific cognitive and behavioral profile. Gastrointestinal obstruction was not a commonly finding of this syndrome. Previous studies [19, 20] reported a fetus of duodenal atresia who had 7q11.23 deletion. Haploinsufficiency of ELN gene located in this region [21] is responsible for the vascular and connective tissue features of WS [22]. Elastin haploinsufficiency could also cause hyperplasia of sub-endothelial migration and vascular smooth muscle cell, leading to encroachment on the vascular lumen and arterial stenosis [23]. Pathogenic evidence is needed to be provided to prove the causative effect of elastin deficiency and duodenal atresia.

Case 3 and case 5 were found to be absent stomach bubble, FGR and absence of nasal bone by ultrasound. 4p16 deletion was detected in both fetus by CMA. Case 5 carried a segmental duplication of 10q25. Deletions of 4p16.3 region cause Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (WHS). “Greek warrior helmet” face, congenital heart disease, developmental delay, hypotonia, intellectual disability and seizures are often observed in patients with WHS [24, 25]. The absence stomach bubble suggested by ultrasonography may be associated with hypotonia in patients with WHS [26, 27]. This is the first time to report absence of stomach bubble as a prenatal phenotype of WHS, in two unrelated fetuses.

Case 4 was a fetus with a 3.9 Mb 4p16.3 duplication and a 5.23 Mb 12p13.33–13.31 deletion presenting with “double bubble” sign and gallbladder not shown. So far, information about duplications of the 4p16.3 region is limited. No literature has confirmed the association between gastrointestinal obstruction and 4p16.3 deletion. The reported clinical features in patients with 12p13.3 deletions varied considerably, presumably as a result of variation in deletion size. Recurrent clinical findings in these patients include intrauterine growth retardation, schizophrenic features, muscular hypotonia, microcephaly and other congenital abnormalities [28, 29]. The deletion of 12p13.33–13.31 encompasses the CACNA1C and ERC1 gene. Patients with genetic variations in the CACNA1C gene have been shown to have increased risk for psychiatric disorders [30]. A recent genotype–phenotype characterization proposed ERC1/ELSKS as a good candidate gene for childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). Isabela et al. [31] suggested that ERC1 is the best candidate for the neurodevelopmental delay and autism spectrum disorders. However, neither fragment was found to be associated with gastrointestinal obstruction.

By dividing our subjects in to three subgroups, we found that the prevalence of chromosomal anomalies in non-isolated upper gastrointestinal obstruction (Group C) was about twice as high as that in isolated congenital gastrointestinal obstruction (Group A and Group B). This finding is also in accordance with Wu XQ and Meng XY’ data [32, 33]. These results proved that a detailed evaluation of the fetus and a fetal echocardiography is essential after the suscition of a GIT obstruction [34]. On the other hand, we didn’t find any genetic abnormalities in Group B. This is also observed in Orgul G’s corhort [35]. As the lower gastrointestinal obstruction is usually manifested very late in pregnancy, this information would be a great comfort for those women with such fetuses.

Postnatal outcomes of 27 live born babies in our study were generally good. Only one case of intestinal atresia combined with biliary atresia died due to liver cirrhosis. The remaining 16 babies underwent surgery at different times according to their clinical conditions. They were all alive during the follow-up period. The survival rate after surgery was 94.1%. A British study [36] showed that congenital duodenal obstruction surgery has a high success rate and a low reoperation rate. Short-term outcomes are generally good. The overall survival rate was reasonably good at 88% [37]. Other findings suggest that the long-term survival rate after surgery is more than 80% [38, 39]. Despite the progress in postnatal surgery, we should keep in mind that genetic abnormalities must be ruled out.

There are several limitations in our study. It was a retrospective study and the amount of data was small compared with other studies. Fetuses with pathogenic genetic findings were terminated without autopsy. This prevented us from further investigating the genetic-phenotype relationships. In the future, we would collect more cases and multi-center cooperation will be considered.

Conclusion

It is crucial to understand whether the gastrointestinal tract abnormality is isolated or associated to other findings. The risk of chromosomal abnormalities in fetuses with isolated lower gastrointestinal obstruction is lower than upper gastrointestinal obstruction. While genetic abnormalities excluded, a promising prognosis is expected for fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

CMA:

Chromosome microarray analysis

GIT:

Gastrointestinal tract

POC:

Products of conception

ACMG:

American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics

CNVs:

Copy number variations

VOUS:

Variants of unknown clinical significance

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

TOP:

Termination of pregnancy

SOGC:

Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada

CCMG:

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists

NIPT:

Noninvasive prenatal testing

WS:

Williams syndrome

AP:

Annular pancreas

FGR:

Fetal growth restriction

WHS:

Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome

CAS:

Childhood apraxia of speech

References

  1. Yang S, Wang M, Shen C. Bowel plication in neonatal high jejunal atresia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(19):e15459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lupo PJ, Isenburg JL, Salemi JL, Mai CT, Liberman RF, Canfield MA, et al. Population-based birth defects data in the United States, 2010–2014: a focus on gastrointestinal defects. Birth Defects Res. 2017;109(18):1504–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Best KE, Tennant PW, Addor MC, Bianchi F, Boyd P, Calzolari E, et al. Epidemiology of small intestinal atresia in Europe: a register-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012;97(5):F353-358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bishop JC, McCormick B, Johnson CT, Miller J, Jelin E, Blakemore K, et al. The double bubble sign: duodenal atresia and associated genetic etiologies. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2020;47(2):98–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guelfand M, Harding C. Laparoscopic management of congenital intestinal obstruction: duodenal atresia and small bowel atresia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021;31(10):1185–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Demirci O, Eric Ozdemir M, Kumru P, Celayir A. Clinical significance of prenatal double bubble sign on perinatal outcome and literature review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(10):1841–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schindewolf E, Moldenhauer JS. Genetic counseling for fetal gastrointestinal anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020;32(2):134–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Singh MV, Richards C, Bowen JC. Does down syndrome affect the outcome of congenital duodenal obstruction? Pediatr Surg Int. 2004;20(8):586–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Quintero-Rivera F, Woo JS, Bomberg EM, Wallace WD, Peredo J, Dipple KM. Duodenal atresia in 17q12 microdeletion including HNF1B: a new associated malformation in this syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164a(12):3076–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu X, Li J, Zhu Y, Wang W, Wu X, Yang Y, et al. Application of chromosomal microarray analysis in products of miscarriage. Mol Cytogenet. 2018;11:44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, Kantarci S, Kearney H, Patel A, et al. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Genet Med. 2020;22(2):245–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Armour CM, Dougan SD, Brock JA, Chari R, Chodirker BN, DeBie I, et al. Practice guideline: joint CCMG-SOGC recommendations for the use of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis and assessment of fetal loss in Canada. J Med Genet. 2018;55(4):215–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang W, Lei T, Fu F, Deng Q, Li R, Wang D, et al. Microarray analysis in fetuses with duodenal obstruction: It is not just trisomy 21. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41(3):316–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamath A, Linden SC, Evans FM, Hall J, Jose SF, Spillane SA, et al. Chromosome 17q12 duplications: Further delineation of the range of psychiatric and clinical phenotypes. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2018;177(5):520–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nagamani SC, Erez A, Shen J, Li C, Roeder E, Cox S, et al. Clinical spectrum associated with recurrent genomic rearrangements in chromosome 17q12. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(3):278–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smigiel R, Marcelis C, Patkowski D, de Leeuw N, Bednarczyk D, Barg E, et al. Oesophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula and anal atresia in a patient with a de novo microduplication in 17q12. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57(1):40–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Xiao F, Liu X, Lu Y, Wu B, Liu R, Liu B, et al. Overdosage of HNF1B gene associated with annular pancreas detected in neonate patients with 17q12 duplication. Front Genet. 2021;12:615072.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rasmussen M, Vestergaard EM, Graakjaer J, Petkov Y, Bache I, Fagerberg C, et al. 17q12 deletion and duplication syndrome in Denmark-A clinical cohort of 38 patients and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(11):2934–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang R, Zhou H, Fu F, Li R, Lei T, Li Y, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of Williams-Beuren syndrome by ultrasound and chromosomal microarray analysis. Mol Cytogenet. 2022;15(1):27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dang Y, Wan S, Zheng Y, Song T, Li C, Li Y, et al. The prenatal diagnosis of seven fetuses with 7q11.23 microdeletion or microduplication. Fetal Pediatr Pathol. 2020;39(4):269–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Duque Lasio ML, Kozel BA. Elastin-driven genetic diseases. Matrix Biol. 2018;71–72:144–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kozel BA, Barak B, Kim CA, Mervis CB, Osborne LR, Porter M, et al. Williams syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Urbán Z, Riazi S, Seidl TL, Katahira J, Smoot LB, Chitayat D, et al. Connection between elastin haploinsufficiency and increased cell proliferation in patients with supravalvular aortic stenosis and Williams-Beuren syndrome. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;71(1):30–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Paradowska-Stolarz AM. Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (WHS) - literature review on the features of the syndrome. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2014;23(3):485–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhen L, Fan SS, Huang LY, Pan M, Han J, Yang X, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome: Ultrasonography and molecular karyotyping results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;225:19–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tang F, Zeng Y, Wang L, Yin D, Chen L, Xie D, et al. Prenatal phenotype of Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome: a case series and literature review. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2023;11(6):e2155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen CP, Wang LK, Chern SR, Wu PS, Chen SW, Wu FT, et al. Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome: Prenatal diagnosis and molecular cytogenetic characterization of a de novo distal deletion of 4p (4p16.1 –> pter) in a fetus with facial cleft and preaxial polydactyly. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(3):425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abdelmoity AT, Hall JJ, Bittel DC, Yu S. 1.39 Mb inherited interstitial deletion in 12p13.33 associated with developmental delay. Eur J Med Genet. 2011;54(2):198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fanizza I, Bertuzzo S, Beri S, Scalera E, Massagli A, Sali ME, et al. Genotype-phenotype relationship in a child with 2.3 Mb de novo interstitial 12p13.33-p13.32 deletion. Eur J Med Genet. 2014;57(7):334–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Franke B, Vasquez AA, Veltman JA, Brunner HG, Rijpkema M, Fernández G. Genetic variation in CACNA1C, a gene associated with bipolar disorder, influences brainstem rather than gray matter volume in healthy individuals. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;68(6):586–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Silva IM, Rosenfeld J, Antoniuk SA, Raskin S, Sotomaior VS. A 1.5Mb terminal deletion of 12p associated with autism spectrum disorder. Gene. 2014;542(1):83–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wu X, Su L, Shen Q, Guo Q, Li Y, Xu S, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and pregnancy outcomes for fetuses with gastrointestinal tract obstructions. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:918130.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Meng X, Jiang L. Prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variants in fetuses with congenital gastrointestinal obstruction. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Quaresima P, Fesslova V, Farina A, Kagan KO, Candiani M, Morelli M, et al. How to do a fetal cardiac scan. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307(4):1269–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Orgul G, Soyer T, Yurdakok M, Beksac MS. Evaluation of pre- and postnatally diagnosed gastrointestinal tract obstructions. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;32(19):3215–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bethell GS, Long AM, Knight M, Hall NJ. Congenital duodenal obstruction in the UK: a population-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(2):178–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lau PE, Cruz S, Cassady CI, Mehollin-Ray AR, Ruano R, Keswani S, et al. Prenatal diagnosis and outcome of fetal gastrointestinal obstruction. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(5):722–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumaran N, Shankar KR, Lloyd DA, Losty PD. Trends in the management and outcome of jejuno-ileal atresia. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2002;12(3):163–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schmedding A, Hutter M, Gfroerer S, Rolle U. Jejunoileal atresia: a national cohort study. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:665022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all subjects who participated in this study.

Funding

This study was funded by the Key subjects of Maternal and Child Health Care in Jiangsu Province—Prenatal Diagnosis(FXK201747) and Scientific research project of Jiangsu Province Association of Maternal and Child Health (FYX201903), China.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mengyao Ni and Xiangyu Zhu contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

    Mengyao Ni, Xiangyu Zhu, Wei Liu, Leilei Gu, Yujie Zhu, Peixuan Cao, Yan Gu, Yan Xu, Chenyan Dai, Xing Wu, Ying Yang, Chunxiang Zhou & Jie Li

Authors
  1. Mengyao Ni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangyu Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leilei Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yujie Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peixuan Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yan Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chenyan Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ying Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Chunxiang Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jie Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XY-Z and J-L did the study design and prepared the manuscript. MY-N wrote the manuscript. W-L, LL-G and YJ-Z carried out the microarray and q-PCR experiment. MY-N, PX-C, X-W, Y-Y and CX-Z collected clinical information and provided genetic counseling. Y-G, Y-X and CY-D conducted prenatal ultrasound examination.Final version of this manuscript was approved by all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiangyu Zhu or Jie Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Nanjing Drum Town Hospital (No.2019–084-01), and all methods were carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ni, M., Zhu, X., Liu, W. et al. Fetal congenital gastrointestinal obstruction: prenatal diagnosis of chromosome microarray analysis and pregnancy outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05828-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05828-7

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us