Congenital Anomalies in Thi-Qar: A Recent Observational Study during 2019
Keywords:
Prevalence, congenital malformation, prospective studyAbstract
Background: congenital anomalies are a significant but under recognized cause of disability and mortality among infants and children under the age of five years. They can be life-threatening conditions, result in long-term disability, and negatively affect health – care system, societies, families and individual (2). Objectives: to estimate the prevalence of congenital malformations in our locality Thi-Qar province, most common type and any responsible factors for these anomalies. Subjects and methods: a descriptive hospital-based prospective study in one year among newborn delivered baby in Bent Al-Huda Teaching Hospital, Thi-Qar Governorate, Iraq from January 2019 -December 2019. Both the mother and her baby were examined as a unit within 24 hours of birth A medical history was taken including parents age, residency, gestational age, and thorough physical examination of the baby was made. all baby with identified birth defects were admitted to neonatal care unit for observation, investigation, evaluation and management. The data were analyzed by simple statistical techniques recording number and percentage of cases. Results: The overall prevalence of congenital anomalies among neonates was 1.26%. The first most prevalent congenital malformations were anencephaly 7.78%, down syndrome 6.11%, upper and lower limb malformation 6.11% hydrocephalus 9%, heart malformation5%. More than one system involvement was reported in (6.11%) cases. Most congenital malformations occurred in male children 52.73% anomalies, 62% > 2.5 Kg body weight &36.67% in term baby. The highest congenital abnormality is reported among babies delivered by mothers aged 20-45 years of age (i.e.,94%). More than 62 % of urban resident. Conclusion: nervous system anomalies, down syndrome, and musculoskeletal system anomalies are most prevalent congenital malformations in Thi-Qar while the low birth prevalence of other birth defect 1.26% may be a result of institutional and personal characteristics of the documentation system. Recommendation: The more wide extensive screening programs to detect the exact prevalence, type, causes and distribution of birth defects is needed and implemented as health program.References
Hamamy H. Primary prevention of congenital disorder. Training course in sexual and reproductive health research ;2011.
World Health Organization. Birth defects. Executive Board, 126th session, provisional agenda, December 2009; EB 126/10, 3. Available form: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB1 26/B126_10-en.pdf)
Steele MW, Breg WR (1966) chromosome analysis of human amniotic fluid. lancet 1(7434:383-385).
Parker SE, Mal CT, Rickard R, Wang Y, Meyer RE, et al. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the united states. Birth defects Res A ClinMolTeratol2010; 88:1008-16.
Christianson A, Howson C, Modell B. March of Dimes Global Report on Birth Defects: The Hidden Toll of Dying and Disabled Children. White Plains, NY: MarchofDimesBirthDefectsFoundation;2006.
- global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000-13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities).
Parker SE, Mal CT, Rickard r, Wang Y, Myer RE, et al. Factors responsible for congenital anomalies, 2004 -2006.Birth defects Res A ClinMolTeratol 2010;88:1008-16.
Singh A, Gupta RK. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital based prospective study. JK Science 2009; 2:34-6).
Cassell CH, Golden L. Epidemiology as a guardian of children's health: translating birth defects research into policy. Ann Epidemiol 2010; 20:493-8).
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).
Swain S, Agrawal A, Bhatia BD. Congenital malformations at birth. Indian Pediatr1994; 31:1187-91.
Hudgins L, Cassidy SB. (2006). Congenital anomaly. Martin RJ, Fanaroff AA, Walsh MC. Fanaroff and Martin, s NeonatalPerinatal Medicine Diseases of the Fetus and infant, , 8 th edition, Elisvier, Philadelphia . Pp: 561-581.
Göynümer FG, Kepkep K, Yetim G, Tuncay Y, et al. (2005). DogumlardaMajörKonjenitalAnomalilerinRetrospektifAnalizi(Retrospective analysis of major congenital anostopdeadmalies at birth). Perinatol. Dergisi 13: 31-34.
Madi SA, Al-Naggar RL, Al-Awadi SA. Bastaki LA. v. East Mediterr Health J 2005;11:700-6.
Al-Ghazali LI. The profile of major congenital abnormalities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet 1995; 32:7-13.
Hafez M, El Sabrawy M, El Salab SH, et al. Study of congenital malformations in Egypt. Egyptian J Pediatr1985; 2:69-93.
Stevenson AC, Johnston HA, Stewart MI, et al. Congenital malformations. A report of series of consecutive births in 24 centers. Bull World Health Organ 1966;34 Suppl:9-127.
Othman GO.The prevalence and types of congenital anomalies in newborns in Erbil ,2013.
Tunçbilek E (2001). Clinical outcomes of consanguineous marriages in Turkey. Turk. J. Pediatr. 43: 277-27
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.
El Koumi MA ,Al Banna EA, Lebda I. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital-based Study.Pediatric report 2013.
Mandiracioğlu A, Ulman I, Lüleci E and Ulman C (2004). The incidence and risk factors of neural tube defects in Izmir, Turkey: a nested case-control study. Turk. J. Pediatr. 46: 214-220.
Hollier LM, Leveno KJ, Kelly MA, McIntire DD, et al. (2000). Maternal age and malformations in singleton births. Obstet. Gynecol. 96: 701-706.
