3.8 Article

Chromosomal defects and associated malformations in fetal cleft lip with or without cleft palate

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00347-5

Keywords

cleft lip; cleft lip and palate; prenatal diagnosis; chromosomal defect; ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the incidence. associated features including chromosomal defects in fetuses, with cleft lip and/or palate and assess the need for karyotyping. Methods: Retrospective study of 62 cases of prenatally diagnosed facial cleft lip and/or palate in a tertiary fetal medicine unit between January 1991 and December 1999. Chromosome analysis was performed in all fetuses with associated ultrasound findings and in 14 (39%) fetuses with isolated facial clefts. Results: Associated abnormalities were detected in 26 (42%) of the 62 fetuses of which 22 (35%) fetuses had multiple other abnormalities. Central nervous system abnormalities and limb malformations were the most common. Three fetuses had genetic syndromes confirmed after birth. All fetuses with isolated clefts were chromosomally normal, whereas 15 of the 26 with additional abnormalities (58 or 24% of the total group) had chromosomal defects (eight cases of trisomy 13, five of trisomy 18, one unbalanced translocation between chromosomes 7 and 8, and one deletion 4p-). All 22 women who chose not to undergo fetal karyotype analysis delivered phenotypically normal infants. There were five midline clefts; each of them was associated with additional sonographic findings and four were associated with holoprosencephaly. Conclusion: Isolated facial clefting is not associated with an increased risk for chromosomal defect. Amniocentesis is recommended when facial cleft is found in association with additional ultrasonographic abnormalities as it is unnecessary for isolated clefts. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available