PREVALENCE OF CONGENITAL ANOMALIES IN A TERTIARY HEALTH CARE CENTER,AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

Dr. Asmita pravin suryavanshi, Dr. M. Mathew james, Dr. Ishwar Agarwal

Abstract


Introduction : Congenital anomalies vary in proportion in different geographical locations. Our study is a hospital based cross-sectional study to
see the prevalence of congenital anomalies in department of radio diagnosis , MGM Medical College.
Aims: To study the prevalence of congenital anomalies in a tertiary centre and know the percentage of specific system wise anomalies from the
data.
Materials and methods : Consenting antenatal women who are undergoing ultrasonography anomaly scans during august 2017 to September
2018 in the department of radiology , MGM Medical College, are included in the study and congenital anomalies were distributed system wise .
Results: A total of 13414 patient scanned out of which 114 patients had babies affected with some congenital anomalies .The prevalence of
congenital anomalies in our study is 0.84%.The prevalence of congenital anomalies is more in multigravida than in primigravida .The most
common system involved was central nervous system.


Keywords


Congenital anomalies , prevalence, ultrasonography anomaly scans.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Dastgiri S, Sheikhzadeh Y, Dastgiri A. Monitoring of congenital anomalies in developing countries: a pilot model in Iran. InITCH. 2011;164:157-61.

Penchaszadeh VB. Preventing congenital anomalies in developing countries. Community Genet 2002;5:61–9.

Government of India. Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK). Available: http://www.rbsk.gov.in/RBSK/. Accessed 20 April 2016.

Taksande A, Vilhekar K, Chaturvedi P, et al. Congenital malformations at birth in Central India: a rural medical college hospital based data. Indian J Hum Genet 2010;16:159.

Shannon GD, Alberg C, Nacul L, Pashayan N. Preconception healthcare and congenital disorders: systematic review of the effectiveness of preconception care programs in the prevention of congenital disorders. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18(6):1354–1379. doi: 10.1007/s10995-013-1370-2. [PubMed][Cross Ref]

Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S Eurofetus Study Group. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:446–454. [PubMed]

Johnson P, Sebire NJ, Snijders RJM, Tunkel S, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound screening for anencephaly at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9:14–16. [PubMed]

Chitty LS, Pandya PP. Ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities in the first trimester. Prenat Diagn. 1997;17:1269–1281. [PubMed]

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.

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.

. Khatemi F, Mamoori GA. Survey of congenital major malformations in 10/000 newborns. Iran J Pediatr. 2005;15:315-20.

. Tomatir AG, Demirhan H, Sorkun HC, Köksal A, Ozerdem F, Cilengir N. Major congenital anomalies: A five-year retrospective regional study in Turkey. Genet Mol Res. 2009; 8:19-27.

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

World Health Organization. Section on congenital anomalies. [Cited on 2016 September]. Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs370/en/

https://www.babymhospital.org/BMH_MJ/index.php/BMHMJ/article/view/106/256


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.