alexa A Comparative Study between Pre-Natal and Post-Natal Screening Ultrasound in Detection of Renal Anomalies in Neonates with Isolated Minor Ear Anomalies | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2167-0897
Journal of Neonatal Biology
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

A Comparative Study between Pre-Natal and Post-Natal Screening Ultrasound in Detection of Renal Anomalies in Neonates with Isolated Minor Ear Anomalies

Khalil Mohamad Salameh*, Shaimaa Abdelhassib Abdelrafeh Fadl, Sanaa Sayed Hussein Ahmed Badr, Hussein A Kamel and Lina H Habboub

Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar

Corresponding Author:
Khalil Mohamad Salameh
Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
Tel: 0097440114258
E-mail: ksalameh@hamad.qa

Received date: December 07, 2016; Accepted date: December 27, 2016; Published date: December 31, 2016

Citation: Salameh KM, Fadl SAA, Badr SSHA, Kamel HA, Habboub LH (2016) A Comparative Study between Pre-Natal and Post-Natal Screening Ultrasound in Detection of Renal Anomalies in Neonates with Isolated Minor Ear Anomalies. J Neonatal Biol 5:242. doi:10.4172/2167-0897.1000242

Copyright: © 2016 Salameh KM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Neonatal Biology

Abstract

Aim: To assess the usefulness of postnatal renal ultrasound in newborns with isolated external ear anomalies in the presence of a normal renal ultrasound on the routine surveillance prenatal ultrasound. Study design: 80 consecutive patients with isolated minor ear anomalies were collected retrospectively starting from December 2008 till February 2011; the prevalence of renal anomalies detected in postnatal ultrasound in those patients was compared with that detected in prenatal ultrasound. Results: Our study included only 64 patients with isolated minor ear anomalies who have prenatal and postnatal ultrasound while 16 patients were excluded (14 patients with no recorded data regarding the prenatal ultrasound, one patient with associated imperforate anus and another patient with unilateral undescended testes). Out of the 64 patients, only one patient was reported to have unilateral pyelactasis in prenatal ultrasound but was reported to be normal on postnatal ultrasound. Otherwise all prenatal renal ultrasound findings were normal on both the prenatal and postnatal renal ultrasound findings. Conclusion: There is no difference in the detection of renal anomalies between postnatal renal ultrasound in infants with isolated minor ear anomalies compared with that found on routine prenatal ultrasound.

Keywords

Renal ultrasound; Neonates; Minor ear anomalies

Introduction

Isolated minor external ear malformation is relatively common congenital anomaly ranging from 5-10 per 1000 live birth [1-4]. The association between isolated minor ear anomalies and renal anomalies are not thoroughly investigated; moreover there is a general consensus that isolated minor ear anomalies are associated with higher incidence of renal anomalies [4].

In our institution all patients with isolated minor ear anomalies are screened for renal anomalies by postnatal renal ultrasound within the first 3 months in life. Since most of these infants had been examined prenatally by ultrasound scan during second and third trimesters and no renal anomalies were documented, the purpose of our study is to see if there is any difference in detection of renal anomalies in postnatal renal ultrasound in those patients compared with that found in the routine prenatal renal ultrasound.

Materials and Methods

80 consecutive patients with isolated minor ear anomalies who presented to our Radiology Department for postnatal renal ultrasound were collected retrospectively starting from December 2008 till February 2011; Waived informed consent was used and approval of the medical research center at our institution was obtained.

Demographic data analysis and birth register details of the included neonates is demonstrated in Table 1. Any infant with no available prenatal renal ultrasound was excluded. Any infant with any other congenital anomalies was also excluded.

Characteristics Frequency (%) Mean ± SD Median (Range)
Baby birth weight (kg) 3.16 ± 0.58 3.2 (1.8-4.4)
Baby length (cm) 50.7 ± 2.47 51.0 (43-56)
Post natal ultrasound timing (weeks) 3.58 ± 1.80 3.0 (0.15-10)
Mother age (years) 30.07 ± 5.4 30 (17-40)
Baby gender Male Female 49 (61.3) 31 (38.7)  
Nationality Qatari Non-Qatari  23 (28.8) 57 (71.2)  

Table 1: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (N=80).

The isolated minor ear anomalies considered in our study was Pre-auricular skin tag, pit, accessory auricular, appendage, ear pinna deformity and dysplasia of the ear lobule. The renal anomalies considered in the study was renal agenesis or hypoplasia, crossed fused ectopia, horse shoe, pelvic or cystic kidney, hydronephrosis as well as abnormalities that involve the renal cortex.

Comparison of the postnatal renal ultrasound findings with the routine prenatal ultrasound findings was performed. The main target was to find any difference in the detection of renal anomalies between postnatal renal ultrasound in those infants compared with that found on routine prenatal ultrasound, at the same time to find association between isolated minor ear anomalies and congenital renal abnormalities.

Data management and analysis plan

An appropriate chi-square test was used to assess and examine an association between two or more qualitative variables. Pictorial presentation of key results was done using appropriate statistical graphs. P-value smaller than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. All Statistical analyses were done using statistical packages SPSS 19.0. Data was presented as mean ± SD.

Results

Total number of infants collected retrospectively was 80, all infants are subjected to newborn metabolic errors screening, blood group test, G6PD test, vitamin K administration, as well as, polio, hepatitis B and BCG vaccinations. Only one patient was found having inborn error of metabolism (propionic aciduria). Our study included only 64 patients with isolated minor ear anomalies who have prenatal and postnatal ultrasound and 16 patients were excluded (14 patients with no recorded data regarding the prenatal ultrasound, one patient with associated imperforate anus and syndactyl and another patient with unilateral undescended testes) (Figure 1). Out of the 64 patients, only one patient had unilateral pyelactasis in prenatal ultrasound and in postnatal ultrasound Follow-up it was normal, otherwise all prenatal renal ultrasound findings were the same in postnatal renal ultrasound findings.

neonatal-biology-included-excluded

Figure 1: Chart of included and excluded patients.

The prevalence of renal anomalies among infants with isolated minor ear anomalies was not different from that found on routine prenatal screening. Table of results is included in Tables 1 and 2.

·Renal Abnormalities ·         Neonates with minor ear anomalies
· Pre-natal Renal US (63) · Post-natal Renal US (63)
·Unilateral or bilateral renal agenesis, hypoplasia ·         0 ·         0
·Crossed ectopia, horseshoe, pelvic or cystic kidney ·         0 ·         0
·Abnormalities involving Renal cortex thickness and echogenicity ·         0 ·         0
·Dilatation of pelvicalceal system ·Pyelectasis: 1 ·Hydronephrosis: 0 ·          0

Table 2: Table of results.

Discussion

In our study, we compared the detection of renal anomalies among infants with isolated minor ear anomalies with that found on routine prenatal screening. And our results demonstrated that only one patient out of 64 (1.5%) had pyelactasis which resolved on postnatal ultrasound.

These results revealed that there is no difference in the detection of renal anomalies between postnatal renal ultrasound in neonates with isolated minor ear anomalies compared with that found on routine prenatal ultrasound. Moreover, there was no renal anomalies found associated with those infants.

In reviewing the literature we found that, the association between isolated minor external ear malformations and renal anomalies was not sufficiently investigated. Also the prevalence of renal anomalies reported in different studies was controversial, causing confusion over which specific ear anomalies do or do not require imaging [3]. A recent metanalysis study done supported that infants with isolated pre-auricular tags or sinuses don’t require routine renal tract ultrasonography [3].

The embryonic development of the ears and kidneys occurs at different ages and at different rates. Any association between the abnormalities of these two organs is therefore unlikely due to a single insult but rather represents the effects of a common gene or a prolonged toxic insult hence there is increased frequency of clinically significant renal anomalies in association with ear malformations when that latter are a constituent of multiple congenital anomalies syndromes such as CHARGE association, Branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome, Townes- Brocks syndrome, or in diabetic embryopathy [1,5].

Conclusion

The results of our study concluded that routine postnatal ultrasound surveillance for neonates with isolated minor ear abnormalities is not warranted if those infants have a normal prenatal ultrasound, and in collaboration with the pediatric clinicians, the presence of a pre-auricular tag or pit should lead to a careful search for other malformations or dysmorphic features, the presence of which will tilt the balance in favor of doing a renal ultrasound [6-13].

Our study has clinical implication on enhancing the need for optimum utilization of the resources and helps avoid unnecessary repetition of ultrasound scans. Prenatal ultrasound is very helpful in detecting renal anomalies of the fetus; therefore further repetition of postnatal renal ultrasound is not needed in infants with isolated minor ear anomalies once they have a normal prenatal renal ultrasound [14- 18].

We recommend a prospective study with larger sample size to clearly identify the association of isolated minor ear anomalies and renal anomalies.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

  • 29th World Neonatal Nursing and Maternal Healthcare Congress
    August 28-30, 2017 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • 2nd International Conference on Pediatric Neurology
    August 31-September 01, 2017 Prague, Czech Republic
  • 10th World Pediatric Congress
    September 28-29, 2017 Dubai, UAE
  • Infancy, Child Nutrition & Development (ICND)
    October 16-18, 2017 (20 Forums, 3 Days- 1 Event) New York, USA
  • 20th International Conference on Neonatology and Perinatology
    December 04-06, 2017 Madrid, Spain

Article Usage

  • Total views: 375
  • [From(publication date):
    December-2016 - Aug 19, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 340
  • PDF downloads :35
 
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version