Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Pattern of Congenital Anomalies at Birth: A Hospital-based Study

Krutika Bhalerao

Keywords : Congenital anomaly, Prematurity, Prevalence, Risk factors

Citation Information : Bhalerao K. Pattern of Congenital Anomalies at Birth: A Hospital-based Study. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2019; 11 (4):252-254.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1705

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Background: Congenital anomalies form the major cause of adverse neonatal outcome as stillbirths and neonatal mortality. The distribution and prevalence of congenital anomalies may be different with time or with geographical location. Aims and objectives: The aim of this study is to determine the pattern of congenital anomalies in obstetrics and gynecology department of a rural tertiary medical college and hospital during the period of May 2013 to December 2015. All the babies delivered in this tertiary hospital during this period were included. The newborns were examined by obstetricians and pediatricians for the presence of congenital anomalies and mothers were interviewed using a case record form for sociodemographic variables. Results: During the study period, 6,076 babies were born; of which, 84 babies had congenital malformations, giving the prevalence of 1.38%. Majority of the women (55.7%) belonged to the age group between 21 years and 30 years. Congenital anomalies were seen more commonly (2.57%) in the multiparae in comparison with the primiparae (0.42%). The predominant system involved was the musculoskeletal system (36.90%) followed by the central nervous system (CNS) (25%) and the gastrointestinal (GI) system (16.6%). Talipes (17.1%) was the most common anomaly in the musculoskeletal group followed by cleft lip and cleft palate in the GI system. It was seen that majority of congenital anomalies were associated with low birth weight (LBW), prematurity, multiparity, and consanguinity. Conclusion: Health education and awareness for preventable risk factors is to be emphasized in general population, and early prenatal diagnosis and management of common anomalies is strongly recommended for better outcome.

  1. Patel ZM, Adhia RA. Birth defects surveillance study. Indian J Pediatr 2005;72(6):489–491. DOI: 10.1007/BF02724426.
  2. World Health Organization. Section on congenital anomalies. [Cited on 2012 Oct]. Available from:
  3. Bhat BV, Ravikumara M. Perinatal mortality in India-need for introspection. Indian J Matern Child Health 1996;7:31–33.
  4. Agarwal SS, Singh U, Singh PS, et al. Prevalence and spectrum of congenital malformations in a prospective study at a teaching hospital. Indian J Med Res 1991;94:413–419.
  5. Birch MR, Grayson N, Sullivan EA, AIHW Cat. No. PER 23. Birth Anomalies Series No. 1. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit; 2004. Recommendations for development of a new Australian birth anomalies system: A review of the congenital malformations and birth defects data collection.
  6. Mohanty C, Mishra OP, Das BK, et al. Congenital malformations in newborns: a study of 10,874 consecutive births. J Anat Soc India 1989;38:101–111.
  7. Chaturvedi P, Banerjee KS. Spectrum of congenital malformations in the newborns from rural Maharashtra. Indian J Pediatr 1989;56(4):501–507. DOI: 10.1007/BF02722424.
  8. Taksande A, Vilhekar K, Chaturvedi P, et al. Congenital malformations at birth in Central India: a rural medical college hospital based data. Indian J Hum Genet 2010;16(3):159–163. DOI: 10.4103/0971-6866.73412.
  9. Khatemi F, Mamoori GA. Survey of congenital major malformations in 10/000 newborns. Iran J Pediatr 2005;15:315–320.
  10. Tomatir AG, Demirhan H, Sorkun HC, et al. Major congenital anomalies: a five-year retrospective regional study in Turkey. Genet Mol Res 2009;8(1):19–27. DOI: 10.4238/vol8-1gmr506.
  11. Mir NA, Galczek WC, Soni A. Easily identifiable congenital malformations in children: survey of incidence and pattern in 32,332 live born neonates. Ann Saudi Med 1992;12(4):366–371. DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.1992.366.
  12. Gupta RK, Singh A, Gupta R. Pattern of congenital anomalies in newborn at birth: a hospital based prospective study. Proceedings of the 42nd National Conference of Indian Academy of Pediatrics (Pedicon); Jan 6–9; Kolkata, India. 2005.
  13. Swain S, Agrawal A, Bhatia BD. Congenital malformations at birth. Indian Pediatr 1994;31(10):1187–1191.
  14. Tibrewala NS, Pai PM. Congenital malformations in the newborn period. Indian Pediatr 1974;11(6):403–407.
  15. Mishra PC, Baweja R. Congenital malformations in the newborn–a prospective study. Indian Pediatr 1989;26(1):32–35.
  16. Verma M, Chhatwal J, Singh D. Congenital malformations – a retrospective study of 10,000 cases. Indian J Pediatr 1991;58(2): 245–252. DOI: 10.1007/BF02751129.
  17. Mathur BC, Karan S, Vijaya Devi KK. Congenital malformations in the newborn. Indian Pediatr 1975;12(2):179–183.
  18. Dutta V, Chaturvedi P. Congenital malformations in rural Maharashtra. Indian Pediatr 2000;37(9):998–1001.
  19. Suguna Bai NS, Mascarene M, Syamalan K, et al. An etiological study of congenital malformation in the newborn. Indian Pediatr 1982;19(12):1003–1007.
  20. Hudgins L, Cassidy SB. Congenital anomalies. In: Martin RJ, Fanaroff AA, Walsh MC, ed. Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, 8th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby-Elsevier; 2006. pp. 561–581.
  21. Madi SA, Al-Naggar RL, Al-Awadi SA, et al. Profile of major congenital malformations in neonates in Al-Jahra region of Kuwait. East Mediterr Health J 2005;11(4):700–706.
  22. Al-Gazali LI, Dawodu AH, Sabarinathan K, et al. The profile of major congenital abnormalities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) population. J Med Genet 1995;32(1):7–13. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.32.1.7.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.