Abstract
Aim of the Study- The aim of this study is to assess the role of ultrasound as diagnostic modality in detecting congenital anomalies.
Materials and Methods- This observational study was carried out in the obstetric unit of a tertiary care centre in Kerala for a period of one year. All the pregnant women who delivered in the hospital after 14 weeks of gestation for period of one year were included in the study. All pregnancies terminated after detection of anomalies by ultrasound were included in the study. All fetuses and new born babies were examined by the pediatrician and sex, birth weight and type of anomaly was noted. Details of anomaly scan were noted.
Results- During the study period, 15227 babies were born, of which 379 had congenital malformations, making the prevalence 2.48 %. Out of the total malformed fetuses, anomaly was picked up by ultrasound in 161 cases (42.48%).Anomaly was picked up before 24 weeks in 21.7 % cases and after 24 weeks in 78.3 % of the cases. Maximum detection rates were for central nervous system and genitourinary system. Maximum cases detected before 24 weeks were CNS abnormalities and cardiovascular anomalies were totally missed before 24 weeks of gestation.
Conclusion- The ultrasound detection rates of congenital anomalies have to be improved to have safe termination of pregnancy and to avoid termination in substandard settings.
Keywords: Congenital anomaly, ultrasound, detection rates.
References
111. E. Garne, H. Dolk, M. Loane, and P. A. Boyd, “EUROCAT website data on prenatal detection rates of congenital anomalies,” Journal of Medical Screening, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 97–98, 2010.
2. Howson CP, Christianson AC, Modell B: Controlling birth defects: reducing the hidden toll of dying and disabled children in low-income countries. Dis Control Prior Proj. 2008
3. Singh A, Gupta RK: Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn: a hospital based prospective study. JK Sci. 2009, 1: 34-36.
4. Parmar A, Rathod SP, Patel SV, Patel SM: A study of congenital anomalies in newborn. NIJRM. 2010, 1: 13
5. Bhat BV, Ravikumara M. Perinatal mortality in India-Need for introspect-ion. Indian J Matern Child Health. 1996;7:31–3.
6. Agarwal SS, Singh U, Singh PS, Singh SS, Das V, Sharma A, et al. Prevalence and spectrum of congenital malformations in a prospective study at a teaching hospital. Indian J Med Res. 1991;94:413–9
7. Enkin M , Keirse MJNC, Nelson J . A guide to effective care in pregnancy and child birth. 2nd ed . Oxford University Press 1995; 1: 45 – 51.
8. Chalanees I, Enkin M. Effective care in pregnancy and child birth. Oxford University Press 1989; 1 : 372.
9. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2002, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Government of India.
http://mohfw.nic.in/index1.php?lang=1&level=3&sublinkid=3613&lid=2597.
10. The performance of routine ultrasonog-raphic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Aug;181(2):446-54.
11. Namrata Kashyap, Mandakini Pradhan, Neeta Singh, and Sangeeta Yadav, “Early Detection of Fetal Malformation, a Long Distance Yet to Cover! Present Status and Potential of First Trimester Ultrasono-graphy in Detection of Fetal Congenital Malformation in a Developing Country: Experience at a Tertiary Care Centre in India,” Journal of Pregnancy, vol. 2015, Article ID 623059, 9 pages, 2015. doi:10.1155/2015/623059.
12. Chitty LS, Hunt GH, Moore J. Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in low risk population .British Medical Journal.1991;303:1165-1169.
13. Saari –Kemppainen A,Iainen KO, Yiostalo P et al .Ulltrasound screening and perinatal miortality. Controlled trial of systemic one stage screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound trial .Lancet 1990; 3356:387-391.
14. Ewingman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD et al .Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome . The RADIUS Study Group. N Engl N Med 1993;329:821-827.
15. Crane JP et al RADIUS TRIAL GROUP (1994). A randomised trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening , Impact on the detection and management of anomalous fetuses. American J of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994; 171:392- 399.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i1.148
