Does Invasive Genetic Testing Still Earn Its Place Before Fetal Surgery?
Carousel1 min read·Published Oct 2026

Does Invasive Genetic Testing Still Earn Its Place Before Fetal Surgery?

Title slide questioning the continued role of invasive genetic testing when non-invasive screening exists.
Infographic showing 100% concordance between FISH and non-invasive screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities.
Comparison showing 52% with multiple anomalies had abnormal genetic testing versus 17% with isolated anomaly.
Study findings show FISH testing adds no value for isolated fetal anomalies when non-invasive screening is performed.
1 / 4

Carousel · Oct 2026 · 1 min read

In brief

In brief

Educational carousel examining the evolving role of invasive genetic testing (amniocentesis, CVS) in the preoperative workup for fetal surgical candidates. Reviews current indications, risk-benefit considerations, and how non-invasive prenatal testing has shifted clinical decision-making in maternal-fetal medicine.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the carousel.

Slides

4 pages · click to turn to one

A clinical comparison chart displaying three treatment modalities in vertical columns with icons, percentage metrics, and outcome indicators. Each column uses distinct color coding and includes graphical representations of success rates, complication profiles, and patient ambulation data. Statistical data is presented with bar graphs and numerical percentages.

Fetal surgery. A social-media carousel made possible by Cincinnati Children's.
The text in the image

Pediatric Achalasia: Surgical Approach Comparison | Heller Myotomy: 78% Success | Esophageal Dilatation: 45% Success | POEM (Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy): 99% Success | Complication Rates | Training Requirements | Ambulation Outcomes | 742 Cases Reviewed | Neuroprotection Study | Placental Mesenchymal Stromal Cells | Lines A & B: 71-83% Ambulation | Without Cells: 20% Ambulation | Robotic vs Laparoscopic Surgery | Clinical Advantages | Patient Selection Factors

The text on each slide
  1. MADE POSSIBLE BY Cincinnati Children's | FETAL SURGERY · GENETIC SCREENING | Does invasive testing still earn its place? | Fetal-surgery clearance still asks for a normal chromosome analysis or FISH. But when non-invasive screening is already done — does FISH add anything? | Lorence E, et al. | Cincinnati Children's Hospital Fetal Care Center · 963 pregnancies, 2018–2023
  2. MADE POSSIBLE BY Cincinnati Children's | THE KEY FINDING | FISH agreed with non-invasive screening every single time. | Across 963 pregnancies evaluated for fetal surgery. | 100% | concordance in pregnancies screened low-risk | Trisomy 21 · 18 · 13 · sex-chromosome aneuploidies | Invasive FISH added no new information.
  3. MADE POSSIBLE BY Cincinnati Children's | WHERE RISK CONCENTRATES | Abnormal results weren't evenly spread | ISOLATED | anomaly | 17% | had abnormal genetic testing | vs | MULTIPLE | anomalies | 52% | had abnormal genetic testing | Risk tracks with multiple anomalies — not isolated ones. | P = 0.0009
  4. THE BOTTOM LINE | MADE POSSIBLE BY Cincinnati Children's | FISH didn't change the answer. | 100% concordant with non-invasive screening | No added information for isolated anomalies | Consider skipping FISH in select patients | Lorence E, et al. — Utility of FISH as a Fetal Surgery Eligibility Criterion for Isolated Congenital Anomalies When Non-Invasive Screening Is Performed. | Cincinnati Children's Hospital Fetal Care Center
Try
Intelligent Search· scoped to this carousel · not medical adviceSearch the whole library →