4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Difference in prevalence of congenital cryptorchidism in infants between two Nordic countries

期刊

LANCET
卷 363, 期 9417, 页码 1264-1269

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15998-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Several investigators have shown striking differences in semen quality and testicular cancer rate between Denmark and Finland. Since maldescent of the testis is a shared risk factor for these conditions we undertook a joint prospective study for the prevalence of congenital cryptorchidism. Methods 1068 Danish (1997-2001) and 1494 Finnish boys (1997-99) were consecutively recruited prenatally. We also established prevalence data for all newborns at Turku University Central Hospital, Finland (1997-99, n=5798). Testicular position was assessed by a standardised technique. All subtypes of congenital cryptorchidism were included, but retractile testes were considered normal. Findings Prevalence of cryptorchidism at birth was 9.0% (95% CI 7.3-10.8) in Denmark and 2.4% (1.7-3.3) in Finland. At 3 months of age, prevalence rates were 1.9% (1.2-3.0) and 1.0% (0.5-1.7), respectively. Significant geographic differences were still present after adjustment for confounding factors (birthweight, gestational age, being small for gestational age, maternal age, parity, mode of delivery); odds ratio (Denmark vs Finland) was 4.4 (2.9-6.7, p<0.0001) at birth and 2.2 (1.0-4.5, p=0.039) at three months. The rate in Denmark was significantly higher than that reported 40 years ago. Interpretation Our findings of increasing and much higher prevalence of congenital cryptorchidism in Denmark than in Finland contribute evidence to the pattern of high frequency of reproductive problems such as testicular cancer and impaired semen quality in Danish men. Although genetic factors could account for the geographic difference, the increase in reproductive health problems in Denmark is more likely explained by environmental factors, including endocrine disrupters and lifestyle.

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

4.8
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