Second trimester genetic ultrasound in low risk patients may improve the performance of first and second trimester screening tests. It may reduce the false positivity and increase the detection rates of Down syndrome (
1). In a large, prospective, single-center cohort study it has been shown that after accounting for gestational and maternal age, all pregnancies with nuchal fold, short humerus, echogenic bowel, echogenic intracardiac focus, pyelectasia and aneuploidy associated anomalies had a significantly increased risk for Down syndrome (
2).
In another study, the most common sonographic markers for Down syndrome were observed as nuchal thickening, hyperechoic bowel, shortened extremities and renal pyelectasia. Sensitivity of sonographic screening Down syndrome was 69% with a false positive rate of 8% when multiple sonographic markers and structural abnormalities were detected together (
3). Although these studies have pointed out the significance of the second trimester ultrasound, in cases that have high risk in the triple test, avoiding amniocentesis based on normal sonographic findings may miss nearly half the cases with Down syndrome (
4).
The sensitivity of genetic ultrasound for Down syndrome ranges between 62.5% and 82% (
5,
6). In our series, 72.2 % of the cases had sonographic findings in the second trimester ultrasonography. In 2001, it was reported that nuchal thickness was the most common (37.2%), sonographic finding in the cases with Down syndrome. Short femur and echogenic intracardiac focus were the commonly seen anomalies following nuchal fold (
7). Nuchal fold thickness was also the most common second trimester finding of our series. However, nuchal fold thickness was followed by hyperechoic bowel and echogenic cardiac focus in our series. The risk of trisomy 21 increases by the increasing number of markers. In a large series, two or more markers were detected in nearly one third of the fetuses with trisomy 21 (
7). Likewise, nineteen out of 22 cases in our study had multiple markers.
Recently published meta-analysis of 48 studies gave the likelihood ratios of the sonographic markers for Down syndrome. The pooled positive likelihood ratios were 5, 83 for echogenic intracardiac focus; 27, 52 for ventriculomegaly; 23, 30 for increased nuchal fold; 11, 44 for hyperechogenic bowel; 7, 63 for mild hydronephrosis; 3, 72 for short femur; 4, 81 for short humerus; 21, 48 for aberrant right subclavian artery and 23, 27 for absent and hypoplastic nasal bone (
8). Aberrant right subclavian artery follows ventriculomegaly and increased nuchal fold in this meta analysis. Two of our cases had only one sonographic finding; namely, aberrant right subclavian artery and choroid plexus cyst. A recently published meta-analysis found that the prevalence of aberrant right subclavian artery in Down syndrome fetuses was 23.6%, whereas it was 1.02% in euploid fetuses. It was concluded that there is no sufficient evidence to recommend karyotyping in cases with isolated aberrant right subclavian artery. Conclusively, fetal karyotyping was advised to cases with high background risk and with additional markers (
9).
The most interesting case in our study was the one with delayed chorioamniotic fusion who had negative screening tests in the first and second trimester. Cordocentesis was performed at the 27th week of pregnancy due to unilateral talipes and delayed chorioamniotic fusion. The association between the delayed fusion of the chorion /amnion and Down syndrome was previously reported in a case report and case series. These studies concluded that delayed fusion of chorion and amnion is an indication for karyotyping when an additional abnormality is found (
10,
11). In our case, talipes was the additional finding.
Delayed chorion and amnion in fetuses with Down syndrome might be part of a developmental delay in malformed pregnancies. But the sample size was so small and more data are needed to clarify the significance of this sign.
Six patients (27.2%) with Down syndrome had no marker at the second trimester ultrasound examination. Thus, although we studied in a series with limited number of women we can assert that one in three patients with Down syndrome revealed no detectable sonographic finding according to our current knowledge.
In Conclusion, this point is especially important in borderline cases. To avoid amniocentesis based on normal genetic sonogram in patients with a high-risk score on screening tests would not be a judicious option. It should be kept in mind that second trimester ultrasound is not strong enough to exclude the diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.