Objectives To compare the prenatal frame of reference of omphalocele (ie, survival of fetuses) with that after birth (ie, survival of liveborn neonates), and to assess physical growth and neurodevelopment in children with minor or giant omphalocele up to 2 years of age.
Design We included fetuses and neonates diagnosed in 2000–2012. Physical growth (SD scores, SDS) and mental and motor development at 12 and 24 months were analysed using general linear models, and outcomes were compared with reference norms. Giant omphalocele was defined as defect ≥5 cm, with liver protruding.
Results We included 145 fetuses and neonates. Of 126 (87%) who were diagnosed prenatally, 50 (40%) were liveborn and 35 (28%) survived at least 2 years. Nineteen (13%) neonates were diagnosed after birth. Of the 69 liveborn neonates, 52 (75%) survived and 42 children (81% of survivors) were followed longitudinally. At 24 months, mean (95% CI) height and weight SDS were significantly below 0 in both minor (height: −0.57 (−1.05 to –0.09); weight: −0.86 (−1.35 to –0.37)) and giant omphalocele (height: −1.32 (−2.10 to –0.54); weight: −1.58 (−2.37 to –0.79)). Mental development was comparable with reference norms in both groups. Motor function delay was found significantly more often in children with giant omphalocele (82%) than in those with minor omphalocele (21%, P=0.002).
Conclusions The prenatal and postnatal frames of reference of omphalocele differ considerably; a multidisciplinary approach in parental counselling is recommended. As many children with giant omphalocele had delayed motor development, we recommend close monitoring of these children and early referral to physical therapy.
- abdominal wall defect
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The Medical Ethical Review Board of the Erasmus Medical Centre waived approval because data obtained during routine care were retrospectively analysed (MEC-2015-308).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No additional data are available.
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.