4.2 Article

Genetic, chromosomal, and syndromic causes of neural tube defects

Journal

SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages S49-S56

Publisher

SAUDI MED J

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [RGP-VPP-301]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To ascertain the incidence, and describe the various forms of neural tube defects (NTDs) due to genetic, chromosomal, and syndromic causes. Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of data retrieved from the medical records of newborn infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit with NTDs and their mothers spanning 14 years (1996-2009) at the Security Forces Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The cases were ascertained by a perinatologist, neonatologist, geneticist, radiologist, and neurologist. The literature was reviewed via a MEDLINE search. Only liveborn babies were included. Permission from the Educational Committee at the Security Forces Hospital was obtained prior to the collection of data. Results: Out of 103 infants with NTDs admitted during this period, 20 (19.4%) were found to have an underlying genetic syndromic, chromosomal and/or other anomalies. There were 5 cases of Meckel-Gruber syndrome, 2 Joubert syndrome, one Waardenburg syndrome, one Walker-Warburg syndrome, 2 chromosomal disorders, 2 caudal regression, one amniotic band disruption sequence, one associated with omphalocele, one with diaphragmatic hernia, and 4 with multiple congenital anomalies. Conclusions: There is a high rate of underlying genetic syndromic and/or chromosomal causes of NTDs in the Saudi Arabian population due to the high consanguinity rate. Identification of such association can lead to more accurate provisions of genetic counseling to the family including preimplantation genetic diagnosis or early termination of pregnancies associated with lethal conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available