Clinical profile of congenital limb anomalies in neonates


  • Yogesh N. Parikh Department of Pediatrics, PDU Medical College, Rajkot, Gujarat, India
  • Mitul B. Kalathia Department of Pediatrics, PDU Medical College, Rajkot, Gujarat, India
  • Dhanya Soodhana Department of Pediatrics, PDU Medical College, Rajkot, Gujarat, India



Congenital limb anomalies, Neonates, Risk factors


Background: Reported birth prevalence of congenital limb defects vary from country to country. Epidemiological studies permit the timely detection of trends in congenital limb anomalies and the associations with other birth defects. The objective of this study was to know the prevalence and the variety of congenital limb anomalies and their association with other anomalies.

Methods: A prospective observational study in which all newborns reported to the neonatal department were surveyed to find out the incidence, diversity and association of limb anomalies. Age of the mother, risk factors and other demographic data of the newborns was analyzed. Babies born less than 28 weeks were excluded from the study.

Results: The prevalence was 6.34 per thousand live births. The majority of the neonates were term babies and female. 28 % of the babies were born out of consanguineous marriage. The mean age of the mother was 25. Median parity was 1. 9.52 % of the babies had a history of anomaly in the sibling. 4.76 % had a history of still birth. The most common congenital anomaly was congenital talipo equino varus. The other congenital limb anomalies observed were polydactyly, syndactyly, bifid thumb and absence of the radius. There were multiple congenital anomalies in 28.57 % of the babies.

Conclusions: The study has given us an insight into the variety of congenital limb malformations and also into the possible etiological factors. A study done on a larger population would probably help us assess the incidence and pattern of occurrence of limb anomalies and help us counsel the parents. 


World health organization. Management of birth defects and hemoglobin disorders: Report of a Joint WHO-March of Dimes meeting. Geneva, Switzerland, Geneva: WHO; 2006.

O’Quinn JR, Hennekam RC, Jorde LB, Bamshad M. Syndromic ectrodactyly with severe limb, ectodermal, urogenital, and palatal defects maps to chromosome 19. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62(1):130-5

Giele H, Giele C, Bower C, Allison M. The incidence and epidemiology of congenital upper limb anomalies: a total population study. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2001;26(4):628-34.

Malla BK. One year overview study of congenital anatomical malformation at birth in Maternity Hospital, Thapathali, Kathmandu. Rathmandu Uni Med J. 2007;5:557-60.

Mathes SJ, Kerley SM, Manske PR, Upton JIII. Symposium: changing concepts in the management of congenital hand anomalies. Contemp Orthop. 1993;27:481-04.

Stoll C, Duboule D, Holmes L, Spranger J. Classification of limb defects. Am J Med Genet. 1998;77:439-41.

Bhat BV, Kumar A, Oumachigui A. Bone injuries during delivery. Indian J Pediatr. 1994;61:401-5.

Birch MR, Grayson N, Sullivan EA. AIHW Cat. No. PER 23. Birth Anomalies Series No. 1. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit; 2004. Recommendations for development of a new Australian birth anomalies system: A review of the congenital malformations and birth defects data collection.

Mohanty C, Mishra OP, Das BK, Bhatia BD, Singh G. Congenital malformations in newborns: A study of 10,874 consecutive births. J Anat Soc India. 1989;38:101-11.

Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010;686:349-64.

Vasluian E, van der Sluis CK, van Essen AJ, Bergman JE, Dijkstra PU, Reinders-Messelink HA, et al. Birth prevalence for congenital limb defects in the northern Netherlands: A 30-year population-based study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:323.

Perveen F, Tyyab S. Frequency and pattern of distribution of congenital anomalies in the newborn and associated maternal risk factors. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007;17:340-3.

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 Genet. 2010;16:159-63.

Chaturvedi P, Banerjee KS. Spectrum of congenital malformations in the newborns from rural Maharashtra. Indian J Pediatr. 1989;56:501-7.

Sarkar S, Patra C, Dasgupta MK, Nayek K, Karmakar PR. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in neonates and associated risk factors in a tertiary care hospital in eastern India. J Clin Neonatol. 2013;2:131-4.

El Koumi MA, Al Banna EA, Lebda I. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: A hospital-based study. Pediatr Rep. 2013;5:e5.

Parmar DA, Rathod SP, Patel SV, Patel SM. A Study of congenital anomalies in newborn. Natl J Integr Res Med. 2010;1:13-7.

Jehangir W, Ali F, Jahangir T, Masood MS. Prevalence of gross congenital malformations at birth in the neonates in a tertiary care hospital. APMC. 2009;3:47-50.

Suguna Bai NS, Mascarene M, Syamalan K, Nair PM. 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.

Hudgins L, Cassidy SB. Congenital anomalies. In: Martin RJ, Fanaroff AA, Walsh MC, editors. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby-Elsevier;2006:561-81.

Madi SA, Al-Naggar RL, Al-Awadi SA, Bastaki LA. Profile of major congenital malformations in neonates in Al-Jahra region of Kuwait. East Mediterr Health J. 2005;11:700-6.

Al-Gazali LI, Dawodu AH, Sabarinathan K, Varghese M. The profile of major congenital abnormalities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet. 1995;32:7-13.






Original Research Articles