1. [1] Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 687–694. [
DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000278820.54029.e3]
2. [2] Colmant C, Morin-Surroca M, Fuchs F, Fernandez H, Senat MV. Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal sex determination: is ultrasound still relevant? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 171: 197–204. [
DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.005]
3. [3] Costa JM, Benachi A, Gautier E. New strategy for prenatal diagnosis of X-linked disorders. New Engl J Med 2002;346: 1502. [
DOI:10.1056/NEJM200205093461918]
4. [4] Mazza V, Di Monte I, Pati M, Contu G, Ottolenghi C, Forabosco A, et al. Sonographic biometrical range of external genitalia differentiation in the first trimester of pregnancy: analysis of 2593 cases. Prenat Diagn 2004;24: 677–684. [
DOI:10.1002/pd.945]
5. [5] Chelli D, Methni A, Dimassi K, Boudaya F, Sfar E, Zouaoui B, et al. Fetal sex assignment by first trimester ultrasound: a Tunisian experience. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 1145–1148. [
DOI:10.1002/pd.2374]
6. [6] Hsiao CH, Wang HC, Hsieh CF, Hsu JJ. Fetal gender screening by ultrasound at 11 to 13(+6) weeks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 8–13. [
DOI:10.1080/00016340701571905]
7. [7] Michailidis GD, Papageorgiou P, Morris RW, Economides DL. The use of three-dimensional ultrasound for fetal gender determination in the first trimester. Br J Radiol 2003; 76: 448–451. [
DOI:10.1259/bjr/13479830]
8. [8] Lev-Toaff AS, Ozhan S, Pretorius D, Bega G, Kurtz AB, Kuhlman K. Three-dimensional multiplanar ultrasound for fetal gender assignment: value of the mid-sagittal plane. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 16: 345–350. [
DOI:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00179.x]
9. [9] Efrat Z, Akinfenwa OO, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester determination of fetal gender by ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 13: 305–307. [
DOI:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.13050305.x]
10. [10] Emerson DS, Felker RE, Brown DL. The sagittal sign. An early second trimester sonographic indicator of fetal gender. J Ultrasound Med 1989; 8: 293–297. [
DOI:10.7863/jum.1989.8.6.293]
11. [11] Efrat Z, Perri T, Ramati E, Tugendreich D, Meizner I. Fetal gender assignment by first-trimester ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 619–621. [
DOI:10.1002/uog.2674]
12. [12] Pedreira DA. In search for the 'third point'. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 262–267. [
DOI:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00034.x]
13. [13] Arfi A, Cohen J, Canlorbe G, Bendifallah S, Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, et al. First-trimester determinationof fetal gender by ultrasound: measurement of the anogenital distance. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;203: 177–181. [
DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.06.001]
14. [14] Salazar-Martinez E, Romano-Riquer P, Yanez-Marquez E, Longnecker MP, Hernandez-Avila M. Anogenital distance in human male and female newborns: a descriptive, crosssectional study. Environ Health 2004; 3: 8. [
DOI:10.1186/1476-069X-3-8]
15. [15] Papadopoulou E, Vafeiadi M, Agramunt S, Basagana X, Mathianaki K, Karakosta P, et al. Anogenital distances in newborns and children from Spain and Greece: predictors, tracking and reliability. Paediatr Perinatal Epidemiol 2013;27: 89–99. [
DOI:10.1111/ppe.12022]
16. [16] Welsh M, Saunders PT, Fisken M, Scott HM, Hutchison GR, Smith LB, et al. Identification in rats of a programming window for reproductive tract masculinization, disruption of which leads to hypospadias and cryptorchidism. J Clin Invest 2008; 118: 1479–1490. [
DOI:10.1172/JCI34241]
17. [17] Dean A, Smith LB, Macpherson S, Sharpe RM. The effect of dihydrotestosterone exposure during or prior to the masculinization programming window on reproductive development in male and female rats. Int J Androl 2012;35: 330–339. [
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2011.01236.x]
18. [18] Eisenberg ML, Hsieh TC, Lipshultz LI. The relationship between anogenital distance and age. Andrology 2013; 1:90–93. [
DOI:10.1111/j.2047-2927.2012.00019.x]
19. [19] Kutlu AO. Anogenital distance in Turkish newborns. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2012; 4: 45–46. [
DOI:10.4274/jcrpe.523]