Journal of Human Reproductive Science
Home Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives
   Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size    Users online: 385


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 302-309
Prevalence of cytogenetic anomalies in couples with recurrent miscarriages: A Case–control study


1 Cytogenetics Laboratory, Institute of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi; Department of Human Genetics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India
2 Cytogenetics Laboratory, Institute of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Human Genetics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Anupam Kaur
Department of Human Genetics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_68_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: About 15%–20% of couples get affected by recurrent miscarriages (RM) and chromosomal abnormality in one partner affects 3%–6% of RM couples. Aims: The present study aimed to determine the prevalence of cytogenetic anomalies in couples with RM. Settings and Design: A case–control study was undertaken, in which 243 couples who had experienced 2 or >2 miscarriages were investigated for chromosomal abnormalities and compared with 208 healthy, age-matched control couples who had at least one healthy live born and no history of miscarriages. Material and Methods: Peripheral blood (PB) lymphocytes were cultured using PB-Max Karyotyping medium (GIBCO) for chromosomal analysis and 20 metaphases were analyzed for each individual. Statistical Analysis: Student's t-test was used for statistical evaluation and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all instances. Results: The current study revealed 3.1% RM cases showing structural chromosomal aberrations, of which balanced translocations and Robertsonian translocations constituted 66.7% and 26.7% cases, respectively, while inversions constituted 6.7% abnormal RM cases. Polymorphic variations were observed in 1.9% RM patients and 1.2% controls as well. However, the number of abortions were significantly more (P = 0.027) in male carriers of balanced translocations as compared to female carriers in the RM group. There was no significant difference for age (P = 0.539) between RM women and control women. Conclusions: Although similar studies exist in literature, our study is the first of its kind from our region that has compared the chromosomal anomalies between the RM group and the control group. We observed 3.1% of balanced translocations and an increased number (though nonsignificant) of polymorphic variations and satellite associations in the RM group as compared to the control group.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article  Email this article
    

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1409    
    Printed21    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal