Main Article Content

Pratixaben Zinabhai Chaudhari
Dr Vandana K Saini
Vilash J Khandare
Dr Simmy Rajiv Ravani
Janki Munjal Pandya
Patel Foram Prabhatbhai


Congenital anomalies, birth defects, hydrocephalus, fetuses


Background- Congenital anomalies or birth defects are among the main causes of mortality in children and if considered while planning the health policies in the developing countries can reduce mortality and morbidity. So the aim of our study was to identify common congenital anomalies and the linked maternal factors along with the evaluation of associated risk factors in affected mothers.

Methodology- Our study was a retrospective, analytical, cross-sectional, hospital based study conducted on 82 aborted fetuses with congenital anomalies at GMERS Medical College and Hospital, Valsad from Feb 2015 to May 2021. Relevant information regarding the diagnosed birth defect and the affected mother was collected from the hospital medical record using birth defect register on a predesigned excel proforma and then was analyzed using SPSS software version 26.

Result- In present study, male preponderance was seen and the highest congenital anomalies were observed in maternal age group from 21-30years, primigravida and mothers with no history of (h/o) abortion. Central nervous system (CNS) was most commonly affected followed by facial anomalies and the genito-urinary and cardiovascular systems were least involved in our study.

Conclusion- In our study, the main system affected was CNS with hydrocephalus as the commonest anomaly which can be effortlessly prevented by maternal nutrition. The data obtained from our study will help to spread awareness about congenital anomalies and their associations considerably influencing the prevention strategy & the treatment plan of birth defects.  

Abstract 18 | PDF Downloads 20


1. Kyu HH, Pinho C, Wagner JA, Brown JC, Bertozzi-Villa A, Charlson FJ, Coffeng LE, Dandona L, Erskine HE, Ferrari AJ, Fitzmaurice C. Global and national burden of diseases and injuries among children and adolescents between 1990 and 2013: findings from the global burden of disease 2013 study. JAMA pediatrics. 2016 Mar 1;170(3):267-87.
2. GBD 2015 child mortality collaborators. Global, regional, national, and selected subnational levels of stillbirths, neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality, 1980-2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet 2016; 388 : 1725-74.
3. Boyle B, Addor MC, Arriola L, Barisic I, Bianchi F, Csáky-Szunyogh M, et al. Estimating Global Burden of Disease due to congenital anomaly: An analysis of European data. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018; 103 : F22-8.
4. Hug L, Alexander M, You D, Alkema L; UN Interagency Group for Child Mortality Estimation. National, regional, and global levels and trends in neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2019; 7 : e710-20.
5. CDC birth defect surveillance Toolkit. Assessed on 2nd October. Available from: Website
6. Jones KL, Jones MC, Del Campo M. Smith's recognizable patterns of human malformation. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013 Sep 6.
7. Fernando S, Bandara T, Sathanantharajah R, Withanaarachchi K. Pattern of clinically recognisable congenital malformations in babies born in a tertiary referral centre in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Medical Journal. 2014 Dec 27;59(4).
8. Kar A, Nimse SB, Agarwal MK. Birth defects: an emerging public health issue in the field of child health in India. Public health and development in India. New Delhi. 2015:222-36.
9. Shakya H, Maharjan M, Lakhey A. Prevalence and pattern of birth defects in a tertiary hospital in Lalitpur, Nepal. NMJ 2022;5(2):606-10. DOI 10.3126/nmj.v5i2.51762
10. Bhide and Kar A national estimate of the birth prevalence of congenital anomalies in India: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pediatrics (2018) 18:175. Crossref
11. World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia. Neonatal-perinatal database and birth defects surveillance. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
12. WHO. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Clearinghouse for Birth Defects Surveillance and Research. Birth defects surveillance: A manual for programme managers. Available from: bd-surveillance-manual.pdf, accessed on March 10, 2018.
13. World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia. Prevention and control of birth defects in South-East Asia region Strategic framework (2013-2017). New Delhi, 2013. Accessed 13 Oct 2022. Website
14. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
15. Vineeta Paliwal , B. S. Jodha, Prevalence of Congenital Anomalous Fetus Born in a Tertiary Care Hospital at Rajasthan, International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Volume 9 Issue 1, January 2020, page 1021-24, DOI: 10.21275/ART20204222
16. Rani MS, Lakshmi VAA. Study of Congenital Malformations in a Tertiary Hospital, Government General Hospital, Guntur. IOSR JDMS 2015; 14(4):16- 20.
17. Parmar A, Rathod SP, Patel SV, Patel SM. A study of congenital anomalies in newborn. NJIRM 2010: Vol. 1(1). Jan-March. Page No:13-17.
18. Sharma I, Rijal BT, Thapa SB, PoudelI. Congenital anatomical malformaon at birth in Western Regional Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal. Journal of Universal College of Medical Sciences 2013; 1(4):37- 40. Crossref
19. Paudel P, Sunny AK, Gurung R, Gurung A, Malla H, Rana NB, Kc N, Chaudhary RN, Kc A. Burden and consequence of birth defects in Nepal-evidence from prospective cohort study. BMC Pediatr. 2021;21(1):81. Crossref
20. Park K (2005) Congenital malformations. In: Park K (ed). Park's Text book of Preventive and Social Medicine. (15th edn). Banarsidas Bhanot Publishers. pp. 379-80. Crossref
21. Jogender Kumar et al. , Prevalence & spectrum of congenital anomalies at a tertiary care centre in north India over 20 years (1998-2017), Indian J Med Res 154, September 2021, pp 483-490 DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1414_19
22. Kanhere AV, Jain M, Jain A. Study of congenital anomalies of fetus and its outcome in a tertiary care centre. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2015;4:1692-5
23. Sangeeta Chippa et al. Study of congenital anomalies during pregnancy. International J Recent Trends Sci Tech. 2014;12(1):73
24. Kokate P, Bang R. Study of congenital malformation in tertiary care centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Int J ReprodContraceptObstet Gynecol. 2017;6(1):89-93.
25. Taksande A., Vilhekar K. , Chaturvedi P., Jain M., Congenital malformation at birth in central india, Indian journal of human genetics 2010;16:159-163.
26. Bhide P, Gund P, Kar A. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in an Indian maternal cohort: Healthcare, prevention, and surveillance implications. PLoS One 2016; 11 : e0166408.
27. Sachdeva S, Nanda S, Bhalla K, Sachdeva R. Gross congenital malformation at birth in a government hospital. Indian J Public Health 2014; 58 : 54-6.
28. Dursun A, Zenciroglu A, Hakan N, Karadag N, Karagol BS, Aydin B, et al. Distribution of congenital anomalies in a neonatal intensive care unit in Turkey. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 : 1069-74.
29. Jangra B, Singh M, Rattan KN, Kadian YS, Kaur A. Congenital anomalies in paediatric surgery in North India. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2014; 11 : 39-43.
30. Basavanthappa SP, Pejaver R, Srinivasa V, Raghavendra K, Suresh Babu MT. Spectrum of congenital malformations in newborns: in a medical college hospital in South India. Int J Adv Med. 2014; 1:82-5
31. Gupta S, Gupta P, Jagdish S. Study on incidence of various systemic congenital malformations and their association with maternal factors national journal of medical research Volume. 2012;2(1):19-21.