1973
DOI: 10.1159/000240563
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prenatal Development of Malformed Fetuses at 28–42 Weeks of Gestational Age (Anencephalus, Hydrocephalus, Down’s Syndrome, Cleft Lip and Palate, and Hypospadias)

Abstract: Mean body sizes of 416 anencephalus, 504 hydrocephalus, 550 Down’s syndrome cases, 653 cases of cleft lip and/or palate and of 1,047 hypospadias were calculated for each week of prenatal life between 28 and 42 weeks of pregnancy. Except for anencephalus no considerable differences were found in comparison with standard growth. A tendency to undergrowth is most pronounced in the phase of reduced growth of fetuses with Down’s syndrome and hypospadias. The reduced growth in anencephalus, hydrocephalus and in case… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

1974
1974
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that the DS fetus may be relatively unaffected by the triplicate dose of chromosome 21 during the first trimester of pregnancy, when the deciduous teeth are undergoing critical stages of odontogenesis. This is supported by studies of general growth in DS fetuses that have shown that growth retardation is not evident until the second trimester (Kucera and Dolezalova, 1973;Globus, 1978;Fitzsimmons et al, 1990). The levels of variability for deciduous dental traits were also similar between the DS and non-DS samples, suggesting that metabolic conditions may be more favourable during the critical period of development of the deciduous incisors than later when the permanent teeth begin to form.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…This suggests that the DS fetus may be relatively unaffected by the triplicate dose of chromosome 21 during the first trimester of pregnancy, when the deciduous teeth are undergoing critical stages of odontogenesis. This is supported by studies of general growth in DS fetuses that have shown that growth retardation is not evident until the second trimester (Kucera and Dolezalova, 1973;Globus, 1978;Fitzsimmons et al, 1990). The levels of variability for deciduous dental traits were also similar between the DS and non-DS samples, suggesting that metabolic conditions may be more favourable during the critical period of development of the deciduous incisors than later when the permanent teeth begin to form.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…This difference is twice as large as other reports have described. 3,5,7,8,12,[17][18][19] Alio et al 18 in a longitudinal study recently reported that in comparison with matched normal controls, the cranial base angle in DS actually increased during the 8-11 year period and then reduced slightly in annual decrements similar to those seen in their matched controls during adolescent growth. Various reasons that have been ascribed to the increased cranial base angle in DS include reduced prenatal vertical growth of the neuro-osteological cerebellar field, 17 lessened cerebral growth, 20 vertical hypoplasia of the central parts of the skull with reduced elevation of the sella, 8,21,22 and delayed ossification of the intersphenoidal synchondrosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…While several studies have examined their postnatal growth, a search of the literature shows only one study conducted in Italy that examined weight, length, and head circumference for GA among 688 live‐born and stillborn infants with Down syndrome from the 34th to 42nd gestational week and demonstrated lower centiles in weight, length, and head circumference than the centiles among controls [Clementi et al, 1990]. Earlier studies based on smaller numbers of fetuses and newborns with T21 have shown minimal or no evidence of deficient growth in comparison to normal fetuses and normal newborns [Kucera and Dolezalova, 1972; Pueschel et al, 1976; Barden, 1983]. In light of the increased life expectancy of individuals with Down syndrome, a better assessment of their birth weight for GA should be available to enable their care providers to better classify them as small, appropriate, or large for their GA and to identify infants at increased risk for mortality and medical morbidities [Battaglia and Lubchenco, 1967; Lubchenco et al, 1972a, b; Hediger et al, 1998].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%