4.1 Article

Prevalence of major congenital anomalies at King Fahad Medical City in Saudi Arabia: a tertiary care centre-based study

期刊

ANNALS OF SAUDI MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 343-351

出版社

K FAISAL SPEC HOSP RES CENTRE
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2015.343

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of major congenital anomalies in Saudi Arabia is a largely understudied area. Knowing the prevalence of birth defects and their trends is important in identifying potential factors that are either causative or preventative. Early antenatal diagnosis of major congenital anomalies is important for possible termination of pregnancy, fetal or neonatal. We determined the prevalence of major congenital anomalies in our hospital population since implementation of an improved screening system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-centre prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh. A total of 63 452 obstetrical ultrasound examinations were performed for 30 632 female Saudi obstetric patients from the period of January 2007 to December 2012. RESULTS: A total of 1598 fetuses were diagnosed with major congenital anomalies, including 1064 (66.6 %) fetuses with isolated major anomalies and 534 (33.4%) fetuses with non-isolated major anomalies. The antenatal prevalence of congenital anomalies was 52.1 per 1000 pregnancies. The median maternal age at diagnosis was 29 years. The median gestational age at diagnosis was 30 weeks of gestation. Two hundred and eighty five cases (17.85%) had a previous family history of similar anomalies. The most commonly diagnosed anomalies involved the genitourinary system (652 cases). The birth prevalence of major congenital anomalies was 46.5 per 1000 live births. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of major congenital anomalies in our hospital population appears to be higher than international prevalences, with a high recurrence rate. Environmental, nutritional and social factors may be contributing to this phenomenon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据