3.9 Article

Clinical and Descriptive Study of Orofacial Clefts in Colombia: 2069 Patients From Operation Smile Foundation

期刊

CLEFT PALATE CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 200-208

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10556656211000551

关键词

epidemiology; maternal factors; nonsyndromic clefting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that left cleft lip and palate and nonsyndromic forms were the most common types in the population, with the most frequent comorbidities being psychomotor retardation and heart disease. A low proportion of mothers were exposed to passive smoking during pregnancy, while low birth weight accounted for a significant number of cases.
Objective: To describe the population of patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) in terms of cleft phenotypes, gender, age, ethnic group, family history, clinical presentation (syndromic vs nonsyndromic), some environmental and behavioral factors, and some clinical features. Design: Descriptive retrospective study. Setting: Patients attending the genetics counseling practice in Operation Smile Foundation, Bogota, Colombia, for over 8 years. Participants: No screening was conducted. All patients requiring clinical genetics assessment in Operation Smile Foundation were included in the study. Results: Left cleft lip and palate (CLP) and nonsyndromic forms were the most frequent types of malformations in this population. Psychomotor retardation and heart disease were the most frequent comorbidities in these patients. A low proportion of mothers exposed to passive smoking during pregnancy was observed and low birth weight accounted for an important number of cases. Aarskog, velocardiofacial, and orofaciodigital syndromes were the most frequent syndromic forms of CLP in this population. Conclusions: In this study, the most frequent type of CL/P was the nonsyndromic complete left CLP. Aarskog, velocardiofacial, and orofaciodigital syndromes were the most frequent syndromic forms of CL/P in this population.

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

3.9
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