Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T15:37:47.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fetal dysmorphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Bronwyn Kerr  and
Dian Donnai
Bronwyn Kerr*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Genetics, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Dian Donnai
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Genetics, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Regional Genetic Service, St Mary's Hospital, Whitworth Park, Manchester M13 OJH, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term “dysmorphology” was coined by Dr David Smith in the 1960s to describe the study of human congenital malformations. Literally, it means “the study of abnormal form”, emphasizing a focus upon structural abnormalities in development.2 As a scientific discipline, dysmorphology combines concepts, knowledge and techniques from paediatrics, clinical genetics and embryology.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 31 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Ballantyne, JW. The diseases and deformities of the fetus: an attempt towards a system of antenatal pathology. Volume 1. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1892: 5.Google Scholar
2Aase, JM. Diagnostic dysmorphology. New York: Plenum Medical Book Company, 1990.Google Scholar
3Cohen, MM. The child with multiple birth defects. New York: Raven Press, 1982.Google Scholar
4Jones, KL. Smith's recognizable patterns of human malformation. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1988.Google Scholar
5Kalousek, DK, Fitch, N, Paradice, BA. Pathology of the human embryo and previable fetus. An atlas. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Moore, KL. The developing human. Clinically orientated embryology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1988.Google Scholar
7Warburton, D, Byrne, J, Canki, N. Chromosome anomalies and prenatal development: an atlas. New York: Oxford Monographs on Medical Genetics, 1991.Google Scholar
8Baird, PA, Anderson, TW, Newcombe, HB, Lowry, RB. Genetic disorders in children and young adults: a population study. Am J Hum Genet 1988; 42: 677–93.Google Scholar
9Whittle, MJ. Routine fetal anomaly screening. In: Drife, JO, Donnai, D eds, Antenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. London: Springer-Verlag, 1991: 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Marden, PM, Smith, DW, McDonald, MJ. Congenital anomalies in the newborn infant, including minor variations. J Paed 1964; 3: 357–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Fantel, AG, Shepard, TH, Vadheim-Roth, C, Stephens, TD, Coleman, C. Embryonic and fetal phenotypes: prevalence and other associated factors in a large study of spontaneous abortion. In: Porter, IH, Hook, EB eds, Human embryonic and fetal death. New York: Academic Press, 1980: 71–87.Google Scholar
12Atkins, AFJ, Hey, EN. The Northern Regional fetal abnormality survey. In: Drife, JO, Donnai, D eds. Antenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. London: Springer-Verlag, 1991: 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Gardner, RJM, Sutherland, GR. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic counselling. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
14Grebner, EE. Basic concepts in biochemical and antenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1993; 20:421–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Whittle, MJ. Invasive techniques of prenatal diagnosis. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 2: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Keeling, JW. Examination of the fetus following prenatal suspicion of congenital abnormality. In: Keeling, JW ed, Fetal and neonatal pathology. Berlin Heidel-berg: Springer-Verlag, 1987: 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists working party on chorionic villi in prenatal diagnosis. An ACC collaborative study of UK data. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14: 363–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Wolstenholme, J, Rooney, DE, Davison, EV. Confined placenta! mosaicism, IUGR and adverse pregnancy outcome. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14: 345–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Cassidy, SB, Lai, L-W, Erickson, RP, Magnuson, L, Thomas, E, Gendron, R et al. Trisomy 15 with loss of the paternal 15 as a cause of Prader-Willi syndrome due to maternal disomy. Am J Hum Genet 1992; 51: 701–708.Google ScholarPubMed
20Purvis-Smith, SG, Saville, T, Manass, S, Yip, M-Y, Lam-Po-Tang, PRL, Duffy, B et al. Uniparental disomy 15 resulting from “correction” of an initial trisomy 15. Am J Hum Genet 1992; 50: 1348–50.Google ScholarPubMed
21Burton, BK, Schulz, CJ, Burd, LI. Spectrum of limb disruption defects associated with chorionic villus sampling. Pediatrics 1993; 91: 989–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Firth, HV, Boyd, PF, Mackenzie, IZ, Morriss-Kay, GM, Huson, SM. Analysis of limb reduction defects in babies exposed to chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 1994; 343: 1069–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Fishman, RHB. WHO on CVS safety. Lancet 1994; 343: 1420.Google Scholar
24Bucher, HC, Schmidt, JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures. Br Med J 1993; 307: 13–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Whittle, MJ. Screening for fetal anomalies. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 2: 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Bennet, MJ, Little, G, Dewhurst, J, Chamberlain, G. Predictive value of ultrasound measurements in early pregnancy: a randomised control trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 338–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Eik-Nes, SH, Okland, O, Aure, JC, Ulstein, M. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1984; i: 1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Bakketeig, LS, Eik-Nes, SH, Jacobsen, G, Ulstein, MK, Brodtkorb, CJ, Basted, P et al. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1984;ii: 207–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Neilson, JP, Munjanja, JP, Whitfield, CR. Screening for small-for-dated fetuses: a controlled trial. Br Med J 1984; 289: 1179–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Waldenstrom, U, Axelsson, O, Nilsson, S, Eklund, G, Fall, O, Lindeberg, S et al. Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1988; ii: 585–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Thacker, SB. Quality of controlled clinical trials. The case of imaging ultrasound in obstetrics: a review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 437–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Lilford, RJ, Chard, T. The routine use of ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 434–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Saari-Kemppainen, A, Karjalainen, O, Ylostalo, P, Heinonen, OP. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systemic one-stage screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1990; 336: 387–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34A report of the Royal College of Physicians. Prenatal diagnosis and genetic screening. Community and service implications. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1989.Google Scholar
35Manchester, DK, Pretorius, DH, Avery, C, Manco-Johnson, ML, Wiggins, J, Meier, PR et al. Accuracy of ultrasound diagnoses in pregnancies complicated by suspected fetal anomalies. Prenat Diagn 1988; 8: 109–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Levi, S, Hyjazi, Y, Schaaps, J-P, Defoort, P, Coulon, R, Buekens, P. Sensitivity and specificity of routine antenatal screening for congenital anomalies by ultra-sound: the Belgian multicentre study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 1: 102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Chitty, LS, Hunt, GH, Moore, J, Lobb, MO. Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. Br Med J 1991; 103: 1165–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Seller, MJ, Bobrow, M. Congenital abnormalities and the pathologist. In: Keeling, JW ed, Fetal and neonatal pathology. berlin heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1987: 123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Keeling, JW. The perinatal necropsy. In: Keeling, JW ed, Fetal and neonatal pathology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1987: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Shen-Schwarz, S, Neish, C, Hill, LM. Antenatal ultra-sound for fetal anomalies: importance of perinatal autopsy. Pediatr Pathol 1989; 9: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Clayton-Smith, J, Farndon, PA, McKeown, C, Donnai, D. Examination of fetuses after induced abortion for fetal abnormality. Br MedJ 1990; 300: 295–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Medeira, A, Norman, A, Haslam, J, Clayton-Smith, J, Donnai, D. Examination of fetuses after induced abortion for fetal abnormality - a follow-up study. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14: 381–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Clayton-Smith, J. Personal communication.Google Scholar
44Brand, IR, Kaminopetros, P, Cave, M, Irving, HC, Lilford, RJ. Specificity of antenatal ultrasound in the Yorkshire region: a prospective study of 2261 ultra-sound detected anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 392–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Pathologists Joint Working Party. Report on fetal and perinatal pathology. 1988.Google Scholar
46Kalousek, DK, Pantzar, T, Craver, R. The so-called primitive neuroectodermal tumour in aborted previable fetuses. Pediatr Pathol 1988; 8: 503–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Berry, CL. The examination of embryonic and fetal material in diagnostic histopathology laboratories. J Clin Pathol 1980; 33: 317–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Knowles, S. Examination of products of conception terminated after prenatal examination. J Clin Pathol 1986; 39: 1049–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49McBride, ML, Baillie, J, Poland, BJ. Growth parameters in normal fetuses. Teratology 1984; 29: 185–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50Winter, RM, Knowles, SAS, Bieber, FR, Baraitser, M. The malformed fetus and still birth. A diagnostic approach. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1988.Google Scholar
51Chambers, HM, Knowles, S, Staples, A, Tamblyn, M, Haan, EA. Anthropometric measurements in the second trimester fetus. Early Hum Dev 1993; 33: 45–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Rushton, D. Examination of products of conception from previable human pregnancies. J Clin Pathol 1981; 34: 819–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53Winter, RM, Sandin, BM, Mitchell, RA, Price, AB. The radiology of still births and neonatal deaths. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1984; 91: 762–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Chambers, HM. The perinatal autopsy. A contemporary approach. Pathology 1992; 24: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Porter, HJ, Keeling, JW. Value of perinatal necropsy examination. J Clin Pathol 1987; 40: 180–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56Winter, RM, Baraitser, M. London dysmorphology data-base. Oxford Electronic Publishing, 1990.Google Scholar
57Bankier, A, Rose, CM, Chemke, J, Kozlowski, K, Rogers, M, Sillence, DO. POSSUM: pictures of standard syndromes and undiagnosed malformations. Computer Power Group and the Murdoch Institute, 1994.Google Scholar
58Buyse, ML ed, Birth defects encyclopedia. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1990.Google Scholar
59Menger, H, Bankier, A, Kozlowski, K, Sillence, DO. OSSUM: an illustrated database of skeletal dysplasias. University of Mainz and the Murdoch Institute, 1994.Google Scholar
60Warburton, D, Stein, Z, Kline, J, Susser, M. Chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortion: data from the New York City study. In: Porter, IH, Hook, EB eds, Human embryonic and fetal death. New York: Academic Press, 1980: 261–87.Google Scholar
61Hsu, LYH. Prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities. In: Milunsky, A. Genetic disorders and the fetus. New York: Plenum Press, 1986: 115–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62Nicolaides, KH, Snijders, RJM, Gosden, CM, Berry, C, Campbell S. Ultrasonographically detectable markers of fetal abnormalities. Lancet 1992; 340: 704–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63McFadden, DE, Kwong, LC, Yam, IYL, Langlois, S. Parental origin of triploidy in human fetuses: evidence for genomic imprinting. Hum Genet 1993; 92: 465–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Nadel, A, Bromley, B, Benacerraf, BR. Nuchal thickening or cystic hygromas in first and early second trimester fetuses: prognosis and outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 43–48.Google ScholarPubMed
65Keeling, JW. Fetal hydrops. In: Keeling, JW ed, Fetal and neonatal pathology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1987:211–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66Morey, AL, Keeling, JW, Porter, HJ, Fleming, KA. Clinical and histopathological features of parvovirus B19 infection in the human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 566–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67Schwartz, SM, Visekul, C, Laxova, R, McPherson, EW, Gilbert, EF. Idiopathic hydrops fetalis. Report of 4 patients including 2 affected sibs. Am J Med Genet 1981; 8: 59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68Weiner, CP, Grose, CF, Naides, SJ. Diagnosis of fetal infection in the patient with an Ultrasonographically detected abnormality but a negative clinical history. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 6–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69Stevenson, RE. The environmental basis of human anomalies. In: Stevenson, RE, Hall, JG, Goodman, RM eds, Human malformations and related anomalies. Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993: 137–68.Google Scholar
70Torpin, R. Amniochorionic mesoblastic fibrous strings and amniotic bands. Associated constricting fetal malformations or fetal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965; 91: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Bamforth, JS. Amniotic band sequence: Streeter's hypothesis reexamined. Am J Med Genet 1992; 44: 280–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
72Donnai, D, Winter, R. Disorganisation: a model for “early amnion rupture”. J Med Genet 1989; 26: 421–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73Nicolaides, KH, Campbell, S. Diagnosis of fetal anomalies by ultrasound. In: Milunsky, A ed, Genetic disorders and the fetus. Second edition. New York: Plenum, 1986: 521–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74Milunsky, A. Genetic counseling: prelude to prenatal diagnosis. In: Milunsky, A ed, Genetic disorders and the fetus. Second edition. New York: Plenum, 1986: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75MRC Vitamin Study Research Group. Prevention of neural tube defects: results of the Medical Research Council Vitamin Study. Lancet 1991; 338: 131–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76Giacoia, GP, Say, B. Spondylocostal dysplasia and neural tube defects. J Med Genet 1991; 28: 51–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77Karnes, PS, Day, D, Berry, S, Pierpont, MEM. Jarcho-Levin syndrome: four new cases and classification of subtypes. Am J Med Genet 1991; 40: 264–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78Clayton, PT, Thompson, E. Dysmorphic syndromes with recognisable biochemical abnormalities. J Med Genet 1988; 25: 463–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79Tint, GS, Irons, M, Elias, ER, Batta, AK, Frieden, R, Chen, TS et al. Defective cholesterol biosynthesis associated with the Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome. New Engl J Med 1994; 330: 107–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80McGaughran, JM, Clayton, FT, Mills, KA, Rimmer, S, Moore, L, Donnai, D. Prenatal diagnosis of Smith-Lemli-Opitz. Am J Med Genet 1994: in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81Machin, GA. Genetic metabolic disease. In: Keeling, JW ed, Fetal and neonatal pathology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1987: 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82Sweetman, L, Nyhan, WL, Trauner, DA, Merritt, A, Singh, M. Glutaric aciduria Type 11. J Pediatr 1980; 96: 1020–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83Brown, GK, Hunt, SM, Scholem, R, Fowler, K, Grimes, A, Mercer, JFB et al. B-hydroxyisobutyryl coenzyme A deacylase deficiency: a defect in valine metabolism associated with physical malformations. Pediatr 1982; 70: 532–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84Brown, GK, Brown, RM, Scholem, RD, Kirby, DM, Dahl, HH-M. The clinical and biochemical spectrum of human pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency. Ann NY AcadSci 1989; 573: 360–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85Kelley, RI. Review: the cerebrohepatorenal syndrome of Zellweger, morphologic and metabolic aspects. Am J Med Genet 1983; 16: 503–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86Poulos, A, Sheffield, L, Sharp, P, Sherwood, G, Johnson, D, Beckman, K et al. Rhizomelic chondrodysplasia punctata; clinical, pathological and biochemical findings in two patients. J Pediatr 1988; 113: 685–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Donnenfeld, AE, Mennuti, MT. Second trimester diagnosis of fetal skeletal dysplasias. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1987; 42: 199–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88Sillence, DO, Rimoin, DL, Lachman, R. Neonatal dwarfism. Pediatr Clin North Am 1978; 25: 453–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89Byers, PH, Wallis, GA, Willing, MC. Osteogenesis imperfecta: translation of mutation to phenotype. J Med Genet 1991; 28: 433–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90Lachman, RS, Tiller, GE, Graham, JM, Rimion, DL. Collagen, genes and the skeletal dysplasias on the edge of a new era: a review and update. Eur J Radial 1992; 14: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91Seller, M, Barnes, C, Ross, S, Baby, T, Cowmeadow, P. Grief and mid-trimester fetal loss. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 341–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92DiLiberti, JH, Farndon, PA, Dennis, NR, Curry, CJR. The fetal valproate syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1984; 19: 473–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
93Sharony, R, Garber, A, Viskochil, D, Schreck, R, Platt, L, Ward, R et al. Preaxiail ray reduction defects as part of valproic acid embryofetopathy. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 909–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94Donnai, D, Kerzin-Storrar, L. Counselling after prenatal diagnosis. In: Drife, JO, Donnai, D eds, Antenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. London: Springer-Verlag, 1991: 255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
95Sjogren, B, Uddenberg, N. Decision making during the prenatal diagnostic procedure. A questionnaire and interview study of 211 women participating in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 1988; 8: 263–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
96White-Van Mourik, MCA, Connor, JM, Ferguson-Smith, MA. Patient care before and after termination of pregnancy for neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn 1990; 10: 497–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
97Lloyd, J, Laurence, KM. Sequelae and support after termination of pregnancy for fetal malformation. Br Med 1985; 290: 907–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed