Study of congenital malformation in tertiary care centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20164638Keywords:
Anamolies, Consanguinity, Targeted scanAbstract
Background: Birth defects are important cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Congenital anamolies are defined as structural and functional abnormalities including metabolic disorders present at birth. There are several known factors that are associated such as maternal infection like TORCH, genetic factors, drugs, maternal age, Consanguinity. Screening in late first and second trimester is important tool to reduce the prevalence.
Methods: A retrospective study was done. Data was collected and analyzed. Fetal outcome was assessed. Variables like maternal age, parity, consanguinity, abortions, sibling with malformation, nutrition, smoking ,alcoholism, family history of congenital anomalies, conceived after infertility treatment, maternal diabetes, infections, fever, drugs, history of intrauterine deaths were critically evaluated.
Results: Out of total 5020 deliveries, 50 babies with congenital anomalies identified. Incidence being 0.9%, commonest congenital anomalies involving craniospinal system (44%). Second most common is musculoskeletal system (30%). Consanguinity is single most important factor which was found to increase the risk of congenital anomalies in our study. In 40% of the cases consanguinity was noted. Most common perinatal risk factors are preterm labor (22%), polyhydramnios (8%) and breech (16%). The fetal outcome was 80% of the babies were compatible with life and 20% were non compatible.
Conclusions: In the present study, most of the mothers who had anomalous fetuses had risk factors like consanguinity and previous history of abortions. Hence the need for focused screening in this high risk category. A level II targeted scan is done at 18-20 weeks and again at 24 weeks to exclude anomalies and reduce the prevalence. Once an anomaly is detected, various management options are to be discussed with the patients in consultation with neonatologist, pediatric surgeon and neurosurgeon when necessary. If parents are willing to continue the pregnancy with compatible congenital anamolies in baby then pregnancy may be continued. But if the congenital anamoly is imcompatible with life then pregnancy should be terminated. This study was conducted to study the incidence of various congenital anamolies in babies and their possible etiological factors in the population visiting to tertiary care hospital at Mumbai.
Metrics
References
Rosano A. Infant mortality and congenital anomalies from 1950 to 1994: an international perspective. Journal of epidemiology and community health. 2000;54:660-6.
Kalter H. Congenital malformations: etiologic factors and their role in prevention (first of two parts). The New England journal of medicine. 1983;308:424-31.
Biri A. Birth prevalence and distribution of congenital anomalies in a university hospital. Perinatol Dergisi. 2005;13:86-90.
Bittar Z. Major congenital malformations presenting in the first 24 hours of life in 3865 consecutive births in south of Beirut. Incidence and pattern. The Lebanese medical Journal. 1998;46:256-60.
Wen SW. Patterns of infant mortality caused by major congenital anomalies. Teratology. 2000;61:342-6.
Rajangam S. Consanguinity and chromosomal abnormality in mental retardation and or multiple congenital anomaly. Journal of the Anatomical Society of India. 2007;56:30-3.
Mir NA, Galczek WC, Soni A. Easily identifiable congenital malformations in children: Survey of incidence and pattern in 32,332 live born neonates. Ann Saudi Med. 1992;12(4):366-71.
Sawardekar KP. Profile of major congenital malformations at Nizwa Hospital, Oman: 10-year review. Journal of paediatrics and child health. 2005;41:323-30.
Verma M. Congenital malformations - a retrospective study of 10,000 cases. Indian Journal of pediatrics. 1991;58:245-52.
Shafei A. Congenital malformations and consanguinity. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1986;26:168-72.
Tayebi N. The prevalence of congenital malformations and its correlation with consanguineous marriages. Oman Medical Journal 2010;25:37-40.
List of some birth defects related studies conducted in India.Study location No. Of Malformed Babies Risk Factors Most Predominant Anomalies, Congenitalmal formations at birth in Central India: A rural medical college hospital based data. Maharashtra January 2005 and 31July 2007.
A community-based survey 14 of visible congenital anomalies in rural Tamil Nadu. Rural Areas of Tamil Nadu. 2004-2005.
Birth defects surveillance study. Genetic Research Centre, National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health, Mumbai, India. 1994.
Chromosomal abnormalities: genetic disease burden in India. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India. March 1991 - March 2005.
Congenital Malformations at Birth -A Prospective Study from South India. (Department of Pediatrics, Jawaharlal of Post- Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry. September 1989 to December 1992.
Pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in stillborn18: a hospital based prospective study. Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad. July 2007 to December 2009.
The incidence of major congenital malformations in Mysore. 1967 through 1969.
Congenital Malformations at Birth (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. 1988 to December 1989.
Taksande A, Vilhekar K, Chaturvedi P, Jain M. Congenital malformations at birth in Central India: A rural medical college hospital based data. Indian J Hum Genetics. 2010;16:159-63.
Bhat BV, Ravikumara M. Perinatal mortality in India-Need for introspection. Indian J Matern Child Health. 1996;7:31-3.
Agarwal SS, Singh U, Singh PS, Singh SS, Das V, Sharma A, et al. Prevalence and spectrum of congenital malformations in a prospective study at a teaching hospital. Indian J Med Res. 1991;94:413-9.
Taksande A, Vilhekar K, Chaturvedi P. Congenital malformations at birth in Central India: A rural medical college hospital based data. Indian J Hum Genet. 2010;3:159-63.
Mathur BC, Karan S, Vijaya Devi KK. Congenital malformations in the newborn. Indian Pediatr. 1975 Feb;12:179-83.
Mohanty C, Mishra OP, Das BK, Bhatia BD, Singh G. Congenital malformation in newborn: A study of 10,874 consecutive births. J Anat Soc India. 1989;38:101-11.
Suguna Bai NS, Mascarene M. An etiological study of congenital malformation in the newborn. Indian Pediatr. 1982;19:1003-7.
Dutta V, Chaturvedi P. Congenital malformations in rural Maharashtra. Indian Pediatr. 2000;37:998-1001.
New Delhi: Reproductive health; Annual report 2002-03. Indian Council of Medical Research; p. 91
Sridhar K. A community-based survey of visible congenital anomalies in rural Tamil Nadu. Indian J Plast Surg. 2009;42:S184-91.
Patel ZM, Adhia RA. Birth defects surveillance study. Indian J Pedlatr. 2005;72:489-49.
Bhat V, Babu L. Congenital Malformations at Birth – A Prospective Study from South India. India J Pediatr. 1998;65:873-81.
Ramakrishna D. Pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in stillborn: a hospital based prospective study. IJPBS. 2011;2:604-10.
