MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1159/000255166

Медицинская библиотека · Neonatology · 2009

Is routine TORCH screening warranted in neonates with lenticulostriate vasculopathy?

de Jong E P, Lopriore E, Vossen A C T M, Steggerda S J, Te Pas A B, Kroes A C M, Walther F J

Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Congenital infections are associated with a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms, including lenticulostriate vasculopathy (LSV).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between LSV and congenital infections, as diagnosed by TORCH serology and viral culture for cytomegalovirus (CMV).

METHODS

All neonates with LSV admitted to our neonatal intensive-care unit from 2004 to 2008 were included in the study. Results of maternal and neonatal TORCH testing were evaluated.

RESULTS

During the study period, cranial ultrasound scans were performed in 2,088 neonates. LSV was detected in 80 (4%) neonates. Maternal and/or neonatal serological TORCH tests were performed in 73% (58/80) of cases. None of the mothers or infants (0 of 58) had positive IgM titres for Toxoplasma, rubella, CMV or herpes simplex virus. Additional urine culture for CMV was performed in 38 neonates. None of the infants (0 of 38) had a positive CMV urine culture test.

CONCLUSIONS

Routinely applied efforts to diagnose congenital infections in cases presenting with LSV have a poor yield. Routine TORCH screening in neonates with LSV cases should only be regarded as mandatory once well-designed studies demonstrate a clear diagnostic benefit.

Для цитирования: de Jong E P, Lopriore E, Vossen A C T M, Steggerda S J, Te Pas A B, Kroes A C M, Walther F J. Is routine TORCH screening warranted in neonates with lenticulostriate vasculopathy?. Neonatology. 2009. DOI: 10.1159/000255166.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.