congenital anomalies Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Article

    Frequency of Congenital Anomalies in the Brazilian Midwest and the Association with Maternal Risk Factors: Case-control Study

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(4):188-193

    Summary

    Original Article

    Frequency of Congenital Anomalies in the Brazilian Midwest and the Association with Maternal Risk Factors: Case-control Study

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(4):188-193

    DOI 10.1055/s-0040-1709692

    Views11

    Abstract

    Objective

    To evaluate the frequency of structural congenital anomalies (CAs) in the midwest of Brazil and its association with maternal risk factors.

    Methods

    This was a prospective, observational, case-control study based on a hospital population. Pregnant women attended at a fetal medicine service in Brazil were analyzed in the period from October 2014 to February 2016.A total of 357 pregnant women were included, 223 of whom had fetuses with structural anomalies (group case), and 134 of whom had structurally normal fetuses (control group). The clinical history was made previous to prenatal consultation, and the diagnosis of the structural CA was performed through ultrasound.

    Results

    A frequency of 64.27% (n = 223) of pregnant women with fetuses with structural anomalies was observed. The most frequent structural CAs were those of the central nervous system (30.94%), followed by anomalies of the genitourinary system (23.80%), and, finally, by multiple CAs (16.60%). The background of previous children with CAs (odds ratio [OR]: 3.85; p = 0.022), family history (OR: 6.03; p = < 0.001), and consanguinity between the progenitors (OR: 4.43; p = 0.034) influenced the occurrence of structural CA.

    Conclusion

    The most frequent CAs are those of the central nervous system, followed by those of the genitourinary system, and then multiple anomalies. The maternal risk factors that may have influenced the occurrence of structural CA were previous children with CA, family history, and consanguinity among the parents.

    See more
  • Original Article

    Prevalence and Association of Congenital Anomalies According to the Maternal Body Mass Index: Cross-Sectional Study

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2019;41(5):280-290

    Summary

    Original Article

    Prevalence and Association of Congenital Anomalies According to the Maternal Body Mass Index: Cross-Sectional Study

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2019;41(5):280-290

    DOI 10.1055/s-0039-1683971

    Views11

    Abstract

    Objective

    To evaluate and compare the prevalence of structural congenital anomalies (CAs) according to maternal body mass index (BMI).

    Methods

    The present cross-sectional study involved pregnant women with fetuses diagnosed with structural CAs through morphological ultrasonography between November 2014 and January 2016. The nutritional status of the pregnant women was classified according to the gross value of the body mass index. The pregnant women were categorized into four groups: low weight, adequate weight, overweight, and obesity. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX), with values of p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant.

    Results

    A total of 223 pregnant women had fetuses diagnosed with CAs. The prevalence of structural CAs in pregnant women with lowweight was of 20.18%, of 43.50% in pregnant women with adequate weight, of 22.87% in pregnant women with overweight, and of 13.45% in pregnant women with obesity. The prevalence of central nervous system (CNS) anomalies and of genitourinary systemanomalieswas high for the four groups of pregnant women. A positive association was observed between multiple anomalies in pregnant women with adequate weight (prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.65; p ≤ 0.004) and between anomalies of the lymphatic system in obese pregnant women (PR = 4.04, p ≤ 0.000).

    Conclusion

    The prevalence of CNS and genitourinary systemanomalies was high in all of the BMI categories. Obese pregnancies were associated with lymphatic system anomalies. Therefore, screening and identification of the risk factors for CAs are important, regardless of the maternal BMI. Our findings reinforce the importance of discussing with pregnant women maternal nutrition and its effect on fetal development and on neonatal outcome.

    See more

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE