4.6 Article

In vitro fertilization and the cloacal-bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex: Is there an association?

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 169, 期 4, 页码 1512-1515

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000054984.76384.66

关键词

bladder exstrophy; fertilization in vitro; congenital, hereditary, and neonatal diseases and abnormalities; urogenital abnormalities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The cloacal-bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex represents a collection of congenital malformations caused by failed mesenchymal development during the first trimester. We sought to determine whether the exstrophy-epispadias complex is overrepresented among children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF). Materials and Methods: The clinic charts of all patients born between 1998 and 2001 who presented to our institution with the exstrophy-epispadias complex were reviewed. Four patients conceived by IVF and born with exstrophy-epispadias were identified and telephone interviews were conducted with the parents. Statistical analysis using clinical data and available United States population data was performed. Results: Of 78 clinic patients with exstrophy-epispadias born during a 4-year period 4 were conceived using IVF. An estimated 12% to 14% of children born in the United States with the exstrophy-epispadias complex are evaluated annually at our institution. During the years 1997 to 2000, 112,137 children in the United States were conceived using IVF. According to published incidence data, approximately 5 children with exstrophy-epispadias would be expected among this entire population. Expected numbers of children in the United States conceived by IVF and born with exstrophy-epispadias during a 4-year period were calculated based on the observed number in our clinic population. A resulting 7.3-fold relative increase in incidence was determined (p = 0.0021). Conclusions: The exstrophy-epispadias complex appears to occur more frequently in children conceived by in vitro fertilization.

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

4.6
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