John Williams

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Ángeles, California, United States

Are you John Williams?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)12.48 Total impact

  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 01/2013; 208(1):S269. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.800 · 4.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Real-time 4-dimensional (4D) sonography can visualize the location of a chorionic villus sampling (CVS) catheter simultaneously in 3 dimensions. We determined the utility of 4D versus 2-dimensional (2D) sonographic guidance for transcervical CVS. Chorionic villus sampling was performed on 40 patients at 10 to 13 weeks' gestation (20 in each study group). Primary outcomes were as follows: (1) time in seconds needed to complete the procedure; (2) procedure failure, defined as the inability to obtain an adequate sample by a single catheter insertion or a necessity to switch to the alternative imaging modality; and (3) acquisition of a sample of chorionic villi sufficient for cytogenetic analysis. Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher exact tests were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Figure 1. A, Two-dimensional guidance of the transcervical chorionic villus sampling procedure. Arrows indicate the chorionic villus sampling catheter. B, Multiplanar 3-dimensional guidance of the procedure. The procedure time was significantly longer in the 4D group than the 2D group (161.4 versus 80.4 seconds, respectively; P = .001). The success rate at first introduction of the catheter was higher for 2D guidance (90%) than 4D guidance (70%) but was not statistically significant with the study group sizes. Adequate sample sizes were obtained in all patients. The main limiting factor in 4D guidance was a low frame rate. Our findings show the feasibility of 4D guidance for transcervical CVS, although at the expense of a prolonged procedure time when compared to 2D sonographic guidance. The value of 4D guidance for less experienced operators remains to be determined.
    Journal of ultrasound in medicine: official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 03/2011; 30(3):309-12. · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between discordant crown-rump length (CRL) measurements in structurally normal euploid dichorionic twins and adverse pregnancy outcomes. This retrospective cohort study included women with dichorionic twins who underwent chorionic villus sampling and delivered in our facility from January 2000 to September 2007. Only pregnancies with viable twin fetuses and normal karyotypes were included. The association between CRL discordance, defined as a CRL discrepancy of 9% or greater, and adverse pregnancy outcomes was evaluated. Seventy-eight women met inclusion criteria and included 24 discordant twins (group 1) and 54 concordant twins (group 2). Maternal ages were similar: mean ± SD, 38.2 ± 3.1 years in group 1 versus 39.2 ± 3.9 years in group 2 (P = not significant). The median gestational ages at delivery were 35.6 ± 3.1 weeks in group 1 and 37.3 ± 2.0 weeks in group 2 (P < .01). At least 1 major complication occurred in 19 women (79%) in group 1 and 25 (46%) in group 2 (P = .01). Group 1 had significantly more major complications overall (P = .0008). Preterm premature rupture of membranes occurred in 10 women (42%) in group 1 and 6 (11%) in group 2 (P = .005). Delivery before 37 weeks' gestation occurred in 19 of 24 women (79%) in group 1 and 24 of 54 (44%) in group 2 (P = .006). There was a significant difference for younger gestational age at delivery in the discordant group (P < .01). Our data suggest that there is an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in chromosomally normal dichorionic twins with first-trimester discordant CRL measurements. These results may be clinically useful for counseling, management, and antenatal surveillance.
    Journal of ultrasound in medicine: official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 10/2010; 29(10):1439-43. · 1.54 Impact Factor

  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 12/2008; 199(6). DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.524 · 4.70 Impact Factor