Risk factors in internal urinary system malformations
- 43 Downloads
Risk factors were studied in 370 children with internal urinary system (IUS) anomalies, coming from 105,374 consecutive births of known outcome. The incidence of IUS malformations was 3.51 per 1,000 births. Diagnosis was performed prenatally in 54.4% of patients. Two hundred and fifty-two patients had isolated IUS anomalies; 118 (31.8%) of the children had at least one non-urinary malformation. Fifty-five infants (14.8%) had recognized chromosomal and non-chromosomal syndromes. The more frequent non-urinary malformations were cardiac, digestive and limb anomalies. For each case a control was studied. The following features were assessed: sex ratio, parity and previous pregnancies, parental age, residency, education, ethnic origin, length, head circumference and weight at birth, genetic and environmental factors. Odds ratio values were calculated for risk factors. Weight, length and head circumference at birth were less than in the controls and the weight of the placenta was lower. Pregnancies with IUS anomalies were more often complicated by oligo-amnios and threatened abortions. Oligo-amnios was more frequent in pregnancies in which babies had multiple malformations and recognized syndromes with IUS anomalies. One child of every three with IUS anomalies had an extra-urinary malformation, which is 12 times the incidence of such malformation in our population. There was an increase in consanguinity in the parents of our patients. The incidence of IUS anomalies in first-degree relatives was 2.9%. First-degree relatives had more non-urinary malformations than controls (7.02 vs 3.2%). Our study demonstrated the high capacity of a general ultrasound screening programme to detect fetal malformations affecting the urinary tract.
Key wordsUrinary malformation Epidemiology Congenital defects Birth defects Prenatal diagnosis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Campbell MF (1979) In: Harrison JH, Gittes RF, Permutter AD (eds) Campell's urology, 4th edn, vol. 2. Saunders, London, pp 1481–1542Google Scholar
- 2.Stowens D (1959) Pediatric pathology, Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 3.Stoll C, Roth MP, Dott B, Bigel P (1984) Etude des malformations congénitales dans le Nord de l'Alsace. Méd Hyg 42: 505–512Google Scholar
- 4.SAS (1987) SAS/STAT TM Guide for personal computers, 6th edn. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C., pp 773–875Google Scholar
- 11.Wals de P, Dolk E, Gillerot Y (1986) Base-line prevalence of congenital anomalies in 17 EUROCAT Registries, 1980–1983. In: De Wals P, Lechat MF (eds) Surveillance of congenital anomalies, 1980–1983 Department of Epidemiology. University of Louvain, Bruxelles, pp 8–101Google Scholar
- 13.Tamparillas M, Baldellou A (1984) Epidémiologie des malformations du système urinaire dans notre milieu. J Genet Hum 32: 147Google Scholar
- 15.Egli F, Stalder G (1973) Malformations of kidney and urinary tract in common chromosomal aberrations. I. Clinical studies. Hum Genet 18: 1–15Google Scholar
- 17.Chapman CJ, Bailey RR, Janus ED, Abbott GD, Lynn KL (1985) Vesicoureteric reflux: segregation analysis. Am J Med Genet 19: 679–702Google Scholar
- 22.Vandenberghe K, Wolf F de, Proesmans W, Fryns JP, Verecken R, Moerman P, Van Asche A, Reaner M (1984) Fetal renal and urological malformations: antenatal diagnosis management and clinicopathological data in 35 consecutive cases. J Genet Hum 32: 145Google Scholar