Objective We aimed to identify gestational-age corrected prenatal ultrasound markers of complex gastroschisis, and to compare physical growth and neurodevelopment between children with simple and complex gastroschisis.
Design We included prenatally diagnosed gastroschisis patients from 2000 to 2012 who joined our longitudinal follow-up programme. Associations between complex gastroschisis and prenatal ultrasound markers collected at 30 weeks’ gestation and prior to delivery were tested using logistic regression. Physical growth (SD scores (SDS)), mental and psychomotor developmental index (MDI, PDI; Bayley Scales of Infant Development) were recorded at 12 and 24 months. Data were analysed using general linear models and compared with population norms.
Results Data of 61 children were analysed (82% of eligible cases). Extra-abdominal bowel dilatation at 30 weeks’ gestation was significantly associated with complex gastroschisis (OR (95% CI): 5.00 (1.09 to 22.98)), with a high negative (88%) but low positive (40%) predictive value. The mean (95% CI) height SDS at 12 months (−0.46 (–0.82 to –0.11)), and weight SDS at 12 and 24 months (−0.45 (–0.85 to –0.05), and −0.44 (−0.87 to –0.01), respectively) fell significantly below 0 SDS. MDI and PDI were significantly below 100 at 24 months; 93 (88 to 99) and 83 (78 to 87), respectively). Children with complex gastroschisis had a significantly lower PDI (76 (68 to 84)) than those with simple gastroschisis (94 (90 to 97), p<0.001).
Conclusions Prenatal ultrasound markers could not reliably distinguish between simple and complex gastroschisis. Children with complex gastroschisis may be at increased risk for delayed psychomotor development; they should be monitored more closely, and offered timely intervention.
- abdominal wall defect
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Each author has contributed to the article. Each author listed has seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and takes full responsibility for the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was published Online First. Owing to a scripting error, some of the publisher names in the references were replaced with ’BMJ Publishing Group'. This only affected the full text version, not the PDF. We have since corrected these errors and the correct publishers have been inserted into the references.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.