Study on incidence of congenital anomalies in a rural teaching hospital, Telangana, India

Jayalakshmi Pabbati; Preethi Subramanian; Sudharshan Raj C.; Sadhana N.; Raghava Rao

doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20162360

Authors

Jayalakshmi Pabbati Department of Pediatrics, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, Telangana
Preethi Subramanian Department of Pediatrics, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, Telangana
Sudharshan Raj C. Department of Pediatrics, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, Telangana
Sadhana N. Department of Pediatrics, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, Telangana
Raghava Rao Department of Pediatrics, Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, Telangana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20162360

Keywords:

Congenital anomalies, Musculoskeletal system, Risk factors, Born

Abstract

Background: Congenital anomalies (CA) include abnormalities in the new born baby’s structure, function or body metabolism which usually lead to physical and mental disabilities and can even be fatal sometimes. The purpose of the study is to find out overall incidence of congenital malformation and to identify the high risk groups.

Methods: A Longitudinal study was done on 4628 neonates in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics in Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur, Hyderabad. All babies born (live and still born) were examined; anomalies documented in a pre-designed proforma within 24hrs of birth and were further followed for 72hrs. Only visible congenital anomalies (CA) were noted in still born neonates. Relevant maternal and family history was also noted. Whenever required, X-rays, ultrasonography and echocardiography of the newborn were performed.

Results: The overall incidence of CA was 4.08%. The most common system involved is the musculoskeletal system (37.6%) followed by central nervous system (22.75%). Among the fetal factors, prematurity, stillbirth and low birth weight were significantly associated with high incidence of CA (p <0.01). Higher risk of anomalies were observed in babies of multiparous (>3 gestation) mothers (7.6% vs 3.96%), mothers with bad obstetric history (5.3% vs 4.04%) and with diabetes (5.5% vs 4.06%).

Conclusions: This study brings to light the burden of CA and relevant risk factors in a rural setting which is likely to emerge as one of the leading causes of morbidity & mortality in the future.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

WHO. Congenital anomalies. Available From: Fact sheet N370. Updated April 2015. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs370/en/.

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.

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.

Media centre. Congenital anomalies, Fact sheet N°370 October 2012 Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts heets/fs370/en/index.html.

Sekhobo JP, Druschel CM. An evaluation of congenital malformations surveillance in New York State: an application of centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. Public Health Rep. 2001;116:296-305.

Penchaszadeh VB. Preventing Congenital Anomalies in Developing Countries. Community Genet. 2002;5:61-9.

WHO. Birth Defects. Sixty-Third World Health Assembly. Agenda item 11.7. [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2012 Feb]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/ pdf_files/WHA63/ A63_R17-en.pdf.

Verma IC, Jacob T. Clinical and genetic aspects of malformations of central nervous system. J All India Inst Med Sci. 1976;1:164-8.

Clark RD, Eteson DJ. Congenital Anomalies. p.159.

Malhotra P, Thapar K. Pattern of Major congenital anomalies and their outcome. IJMDS. 2015;4(1).

Hussain S, Asghar I, Sabir M, Chattha MN. Prevalence and pattern of congenital malformations among neonates in the neonatal unit of a teaching hospital. 2014;64(6):629-34.

Parmar A, Rathod SP, Patel SV, Patel SM. A Study of Congenital Anomalies in Newborn. National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine. 2010;1(1).

El Koumi MA, Al Banna EA, Lebda I. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital-based study. Pediatric Reports. 2013;:e5:20-3.

Sarkar S, Patra C, Dasgupta MK, Nayek K. Prevalence of Congenital Anomalies in Neonates and Associated Risk Factors in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Eastern India. Journal of Clinical Neonatology. 2013;2(3):131-4.

Singh A, Gupta RK. Pattern of Congenital Anomalies in Newborn: A Hospital Based Prospective Study. JK SCIENCE. 2009;11(1).

ICMR, New Delhi: Reproductive health; Annual report, 2002-03; p 91.

Kar A. Birth Defects in India: Magnitude, Public Health Impact and Prevention. JKIMSU. 2014;3(2).