IADR Abstract Archives
Consanguinity and Cleft Lip and Palate in Southern Part of India
Objectives: The purpose of our study is to find out what proportion of children affected with cleft lip and palate anomalies were born from consanguineous marriages.
Methods: We collected pedigrees and family history information during personal interview with mothers of children affected with cleft lip and palate from the Puducherry territory, who came to Karaikal to receive a free surgery from Rotaplast medical team. General Genetic Questionnaire was used as interview instrument in personal interview and pedigree was drawn based on information provided by mother and/or other relatives.
Total of 110 families with a child affected with cleft lip (CL), cleft lip and palate (CLP), and cleft palate (CP), and syndromes with an orofacial cleft (OFC) were evaluated in our study.
Results: There were 104 nonsyndromic OFC in our sample and 6 syndromic ones. Vast majority of patients were affected with CLP (n=71, 64.55%), followed by patients with CL (n=29, 26.36%), and only 4 patients had CP.
Consanguinity of parents (mother and father of a child with a cleft were related to each other) was observed in 25 families (22.73%). In 2 of these families, a child was affected with a syndromic cleft and in one with CP. If evaluating according to cleft diagnoses, in 6 out of 29 families (20.69%) with a child affected with CL, parents were related to each other. Slightly higher was consanguinity of parents observed in CLP (n=16 out of 71, 22.54%). This difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusions: Our results from Karaikal revealed that almost every fourth child affected with CL or CLP was born in consanguineous marriage. Data reported on consanguinity from South India described that 6.53% of all marriages are consanguineous. Thus, although our study is based on a hospital sample and is not population based, our results suggest that consanguinity could play an important role in etiology of nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate anomalies in southern part of India.
Methods: We collected pedigrees and family history information during personal interview with mothers of children affected with cleft lip and palate from the Puducherry territory, who came to Karaikal to receive a free surgery from Rotaplast medical team. General Genetic Questionnaire was used as interview instrument in personal interview and pedigree was drawn based on information provided by mother and/or other relatives.
Total of 110 families with a child affected with cleft lip (CL), cleft lip and palate (CLP), and cleft palate (CP), and syndromes with an orofacial cleft (OFC) were evaluated in our study.
Results: There were 104 nonsyndromic OFC in our sample and 6 syndromic ones. Vast majority of patients were affected with CLP (n=71, 64.55%), followed by patients with CL (n=29, 26.36%), and only 4 patients had CP.
Consanguinity of parents (mother and father of a child with a cleft were related to each other) was observed in 25 families (22.73%). In 2 of these families, a child was affected with a syndromic cleft and in one with CP. If evaluating according to cleft diagnoses, in 6 out of 29 families (20.69%) with a child affected with CL, parents were related to each other. Slightly higher was consanguinity of parents observed in CLP (n=16 out of 71, 22.54%). This difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusions: Our results from Karaikal revealed that almost every fourth child affected with CL or CLP was born in consanguineous marriage. Data reported on consanguinity from South India described that 6.53% of all marriages are consanguineous. Thus, although our study is based on a hospital sample and is not population based, our results suggest that consanguinity could play an important role in etiology of nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate anomalies in southern part of India.