article
Background: Congenital anomalies (CA) are major causes of mortality in children under the age of five. They cause social, mental, physical distress and a lot of liabilities to the mother, family and society based on the severity of the anomalies. This study assessed the pattern of anomalies detected during fetal anomaly ultrasound scans, the associated factors and their outcomes at the University College Hospital (UCH) in Ibadan. Methodology: This is a retrospective study of the fetal anomaly ultrasound scans done over 10 years in UCH, Ibadan. Patients’ fetal anomaly ultrasound scan reports were retrieved and some obstetric information, including risks identified, were also extracted from the records. Inclusion criteria were those who had anomaly ultrasound done using the International Society for Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ISUOG) guideline and pregnant women with incomplete data were excluded. Pregnant women were classified as high risk if the risk of having fetuses with congenital anomalies were greater than that of general population. Data entry and analysis were done using SPSS version 27. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done and a p < 0.05 was regarded as significant Result: The prevalence of anomalies among 6191 fetuses who had ultrasound scans in this study was 3.1%. The most prevalent were Genitourinary Systems (GUS) anomalies, 77 (39.7%). Factors associated with anomalies were gestational age (p<0.001), risk status (p<0.001) and multiple pregnancies (p<0.001). The outcomes of the pregnancies with anomalies showed that 1.0% absconded, 6.7% had perinatal deaths, 16.5% pregnancies were terminated because of major anomalies and 16.0% had surgeries to correct the anomalies. Conclusion: The prevalence of anomalies has not changed over time and anomalies of the genitourinary system were the most prevalent. There is need for comprehensive preconception care and implementation of strategies to reduce the risk factors in prospective mothers.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.82339/jrmt.vol6no1.14
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.