Abstract
To describe the epidemiology of congenital malformations of the external ear (CMEE). Data were obtained from the Birth Defects Surveillance System in Hunan Province, China, 2016 to 2020. The prevalence of CMEEs is defined as the number of cases per 1000 fetuses (births and deaths at 28 weeks of gestation and beyond) (unit: ‰). Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by the log-binomial method. Chi-square trend tests (χ2trend) were used to determine trends in prevalence by year. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Crude odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to examine the association of sex, residence, and maternal age with CMEEs. Our study included 847,755 fetuses, and 14,459 birth defects were identified, including 1227 CMEEs (accounted for 8.49% of birth defects). The prevalences of birth defects and CMEEs were 17.06‰ (95%CI: 16.78–17.33) and 1.45‰ (95%CI: 1.37–1.53), respectively. A total of 185 microtia-anotias were identified, accounting for 15.08% of CMEEs, with a prevalence of 0.22‰ (95%CI: 0.19–0.25). And 1042 other CMEEs were identified, accounting for 84.92% of CMEEs. From 2016 to 2020, the prevalences of birth defects were 18.20‰, 18.00‰, 16.31‰, 16.03‰, and 16.47‰, respectively, showing a downward trend (χ2trend =8.45, P < .01); the prevalences of CMEEs were 1.19‰, 1.62‰, 1.80‰, 1.21‰, and 1.35‰, respectively, with no significant trend (χ2trend =0.09, P = .77). CMEEs were more common in males than females (1.60‰ vs 1.27‰, OR = 1.26, 95%CI: 1.12–1.41), in urban areas than in rural areas (1.77‰ vs 1.23‰, OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 1.29–1.62). The prevalences of CMEEs for maternal age < 20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, and ≥ 35 were 1.75‰, 1.27‰, 1.44‰, 1.47‰, and 1.58‰, respectively, with no significant difference (P > .05, reference: 25–29). Most CMEEs were diagnosed by clinical examinations (92.34%), and most CMEEs were diagnosed postpartum (within 7 days) (96.25%). In summary, we have presented the epidemiology of CMEEs in Hunan Province, China. CMEEs were more common in males than females, in urban areas than rural areas, whereas there was no significant difference in prevalence of CMEEs by maternal age. We inferred that CMEEs may be mainly related to genetics, and the mechanism needs to be examined in the future.
Keywords: anotia, congenital abnormalities, ear malformations, epidemiology, microtia, prevalence
1. Introduction
Birth defects are structural or functional anomalies at or before birth.[1] The prevalence of birth defects is 2% to 3% worldwide[2] and is estimated to be 4% to 6% in China.[3] Congenital malformation of the external ear (CMEE) is one of the most common birth defects, with a reported prevalence of 1:6000 until 1:6830 newborns.[4] The prevalence of CMEEs was 16.92 per 10,000 perinatal infants in Hunan Province, China (2010–2020).[5] Common CMEEs include microtia-anotias, preauricular tags, and prominent ears.[4,6] Although most CMEEs have minimal physiologic impact, even minor malformations can present an aesthetic and psychosocial concern for pediatric patients and their parents, such as psychological distress, anxiety, social avoidance, and behavioral problems.[7,8] In addition, many CMEEs are combined with middle ear malformations or may be found in syndromes.[9–11] Therefore, studies on CMEEs are significant and deserve more attention.
There were some studies on the classification, genetics, natural history, and management of CMEEs. E.g., Chang et al reviewed the types of deformational ear deformities and the most up-to-date literature on ear molding[12]; Daniali et al studied the treatment of ear malformations in newborns[13]; Lennon et al studied nonsurgical management of congenital auricular anomalies[14]; Klockars et al studied embryology and epidemiology of microtia[15]; Alasti et al studied genetics of microtia[16]; Bartel-Friedrich et al reviewed syndromes of congenital auricular malformations[17]; Siegert et al studied the otoplasty and auricular reconstruction.[18] There were some studies on the epidemiology of CMEEs. E.g., Xie et al reported that the prevalences of microtia-anotias and other CMEEs were 2.22 and 17.39 per 10,000 perinatal infants, respectively, in Hunan Province, China (2005–2014)[19]; The prevalence of anotia was 0.04 per 1000 births in Europe (2003–2007)[20]; The prevalence of congenital aural atresia and cryptotia were 3.9 and 3.2 per 10,000 pregnancies, respectively, in Japan (2011–2014)[21]; The prevalences of anotia and microtia were 0.47 and 2.9 per 10,000 live births in Korea (2008–2014)[22]; The prevalence of microtia-anotias was 1.6 per 10,000 births in Kampala, Uganda (2015–2017)[23]; Bartel-Friedrich et al found microtia is more frequent in males[17]; Zhu et al found the prevalence of anotia and microtia in the urban area was significantly higher than that in the rural area[24,25]; Forrester et al found anotia and microtia were more common in infants with advanced maternal age.[26] However, there are limitations in these studies. First, although the prevalence of some specific CMEEs (such as anotia and microtia) has been reported in some studies, to our knowledge, there were almost no systematic in-depth epidemiologic studies on CMEEs. Second, more systematic studies on the epidemiology of CMEEs in China are needed. Third, some previous studies could have been more extensive in data, such as relatively few cases included or surveys conducted in unrepresentative districts or a shorter period. Fourth, some studies needed to be updated.
Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive analysis from hospital-based surveillance in Hunan Province, China, 2016 to 2020, to describe the epidemiology of CMEEs, which may make some original contribution to the field.
2. Methods
2.1. Data sources
The data was derived from the Birth Defects Surveillance System in Hunan Province, China, 2016 to 2020, which is run by the Hunan Provincial Health Commission and involves 52 representative registered hospitals in Hunan Province. Details are presented in Figures 1 and 2. Detailed information on birth defects surveillance has been reported elsewhere.[3] Surveillance data of fetuses (births and deaths at 28 weeks of gestation and beyond) and all birth defects (between 28 weeks of gestation and 7 days after delivery) included demographic characteristics such as sex, residence, maternal age, and other key information.
Figure 1.
Location of Hunan Province, China.
Figure 2.
Distribution of birth defects surveillance sites.
In the Birth Defects Surveillance System in Hunan Province, CMEEs are classified as anotia, microtia, and other CMEEs. Since severe microtia usually contain anotia,[27] they are classified into the same group (microtia-anotia).
2.2. Definitions
The prevalence of CMEEs is defined as the number of cases per 1000 fetuses (births and deaths at 28 weeks of gestation and beyond) (unit: ‰).
2.3. Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital (NO: 2023-S019). It is a retrospective study of medical records; all data were fully anonymized before we accessed them. Moreover, we deidentified the patient records before analysis. We confirmed that all experiments were performed following relevant guidelines and regulations. We confirmed that informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s). Doctors obtain consent from pregnant women before collecting surveillance data, witnessed by their families and the heads of the obstetrics or neonatal departments. Doctors obtain consent from their parents or guardians for live births witnessed by their families and the heads of the obstetrics or neonatal departments. Since the Health Commission of Hunan Province collects those data, and the government has emphasized the privacy policy in the “Maternal and Child Health Monitoring Manual in Hunan Province,” there is no additional written informed consent.
2.4. Data quality control
To carry out surveillance, the Hunan Provincial Health Commission formulated the “Maternal and Child Health Monitoring Manual in Hunan Province.” Data were collected and reported by experienced doctors. To reduce the integrity and information error rates of surveillance data, the Hunan Provincial Health Commission asked the technical guidance departments to conduct comprehensive quality control each year.
2.5. Statistical analysis
Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by the log-binomial method.[28] Chi-square trend tests (χ2trend) were used to determine trends in prevalence by year. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Crude odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to examine the association of sex, residence, and maternal age with CMEEs.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 18.0 (IBM Corp., NY).
3. Results
3.1. Prevalence of CMEEs in Hunan Province, China, 2016 to 2020
Our study included 847,755 fetuses, and 14,459 birth defects were identified, including 1227 CMEEs (accounted for 8.49% of birth defects). The prevalences of birth defects and CMEEs were 17.06‰ (95%CI: 16.78–17.33) and 1.45‰ (95%CI: 1.37–1.53), respectively. A total of 185 microtia-anotias were identified, accounting for 15.08% of CMEEs, with a prevalence of 0.22‰ (95%CI: 0.19–0.25). And 1042 other CMEEs were identified, accounting for 84.92% of CMEEs.
From 2016 to 2020, the prevalences of birth defects were 18.20‰, 18.00‰, 16.31‰, 16.03‰, and 16.47‰, respectively, showing a downward trend (χ2trend =8.45, P < .01); the prevalences of CMEEs were 1.19‰, 1.62‰, 1.80‰, 1.21‰, and 1.35‰, respectively, with no significant trend (χ2trend =0.09, P = .77) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Prevalence of congenital malformations of the external ear in Hunan Province, China, 2016 to 2020.
| Yr | Fetuses (n) | Birth defects (n) | CMEE (n) | Microtia-anotia | Other CMEE | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | Proportion in birth defects (%) | n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | Proportion in CMEE (%) | n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | Proportion in CMEE (%) | ||
| 2016 | 170,688 | 3107 | 18.20 (17.56–18.84) | 203 | 1.19 (1.03–1.35) | 6.53 | 28 | 0.16 (0.10–0.22) | 13.79 | 175 | 1.03 (0.87–1.18) | 86.21 |
| 2017 | 196,316 | 3533 | 18.00 (17.40–18.59) | 319 | 1.62 (1.45–1.80) | 9.03 | 40 | 0.20 (0.14–0.27) | 12.54 | 279 | 1.42 (1.25–1.59) | 87.46 |
| 2018 | 177,762 | 2900 | 16.31 (15.72–16.91) | 320 | 1.80 (1.60–2.00) | 11.03 | 33 | 0.19 (0.12–0.25) | 10.31 | 287 | 1.61 (1.43–1.80) | 89.69 |
| 2019 | 164,840 | 2643 | 16.03 (15.42–16.65) | 199 | 1.21 (1.04–1.37) | 7.53 | 39 | 0.24 (0.16–0.31) | 19.60 | 160 | 0.97 (0.82–1.12) | 80.40 |
| 2020 | 138,149 | 2276 | 16.47 (15.80–17.15) | 186 | 1.35 (1.15–1.54) | 8.17 | 45 | 0.33 (0.23–0.42) | 24.19 | 141 | 1.02 (0.85–1.19) | 75.81 |
| Total | 847,755 | 14,459 | 17.06 (16.78–17.33) | 1227 | 1.45 (1.37–1.53) | 8.49 | 185 | 0.22 (0.19–0.25) | 15.08 | 1042 | 1.23 (1.15–1.30) | 84.92 |
CMEE = congenital malformations of the external ear.
3.2. Prevalence of CMEEs by sex, residence, and maternal age
CMEEs were more common in males than females (1.60‰ vs 1.27‰, OR = 1.26, 95%CI: 1.12–1.41), in urban areas than in rural areas (1.77‰ vs 1.23‰, OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 1.29–1.62). The prevalences of CMEEs for maternal age < 20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, and ≥ 35 were 1.75‰, 1.27‰, 1.44‰, 1.47‰, and 1.58‰, respectively, with no significant difference (P > .05, reference: 25–29).
Microtia-anotias were more common in males than females (0.26‰ vs 0.17‰, OR = 1.57, 95%CI: 1.16–2.12). The prevalences of microtia-anotias for urban and rural areas were 0.24‰ and 0.20‰, respectively, with no significant difference (OR = 1.20, 95%CI: 0.90–1.61). The prevalences of microtia-anotias for maternal age < 20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, and ≥ 35 were 0.36‰, 0.23‰, 0.21‰, 0.21‰, and 0.25‰, respectively, with no significant difference (P > .05, reference: 25–29).
Table 2 shows the prevalence details by sex, residence, and maternal age (Table 2).
Table 2.
Prevalence of congenital malformations of the external ear by residence, sex, and maternal age.
| Variables | Fetuses (n) | Microtia-anotia | Other CMEE | Total CMEE | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | n | Prevalence (‰,95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | ||
| Sex | ||||||||||
| Male | 448,288 | 118 | 0.26 (0.22–0.31) | 1.57 (1.16–2.12) | 600 | 1.34 (1.23–1.45) | 1.21 (1.07–1.37) | 718 | 1.60 (1.48–1.72) | 1.26 (1.12–1.41) |
| Female | 399,368 | 67 | 0.17 (0.13–0.21) | Reference | 442 | 1.11 (1.00–1.21) | Reference | 509 | 1.27 (1.16–1.39) | Reference |
| Unknown | 99 | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - | 0 | - | - |
| Residence | ||||||||||
| Urban | 342,178 | 83 | 0.24 (0.19–0.29) | 1.20 (0.90–1.61) | 524 | 1.53 (1.40–1.66) | 1.50 (1.32–1.69) | 607 | 1.77 (1.63–1.92) | 1.45 (1.29–1.62) |
| Rural | 505,577 | 102 | 0.20 (0.16–0.24) | Reference | 518 | 1.02 (0.94–1.11) | Reference | 620 | 1.23 (1.13–1.32) | Reference |
| Maternal age (yr old) | ||||||||||
| <20 | 13,711 | 5 | 0.36 (0.05–0.68) | 1.76 (0.71–4.36) | 19 | 1.39 (0.76–2.01) | 1.12 (0.71–1.78) | 24 | 1.75 (1.05–2.45) | 1.22 (0.81–1.83) |
| 20–24 | 118,531 | 27 | 0.23 (0.14–0.31) | 1.10 (0.71–1.71) | 123 | 1.04 (0.85–1.22) | 0.84 (0.69–1.03) | 150 | 1.27 (1.06–1.47) | 0.88 (0.73–1.05) |
| 25–29 | 357,582 | 74 | 0.21 (0.16–0.25) | Reference | 441 | 1.23 (1.12–1.35) | Reference | 515 | 1.44 (1.32–1.56) | Reference |
| 30–34 | 243,649 | 50 | 0.21 (0.15–0.26) | 0.99 (0.69–1.42) | 308 | 1.26 (1.12–1.41) | 1.03 (0.89–1.19) | 358 | 1.47 (1.32–1.62) | 1.02 (0.89–1.17) |
| ≥35 | 114,282 | 29 | 0.25 (0.16–0.35) | 1.23 (0.80–1.88) | 151 | 1.32 (1.11–1.53) | 1.07 (0.89–1.29) | 180 | 1.58 (1.34–1.81) | 1.09 (0.92–1.30) |
CI = confidence intervals, CMEE = congenital malformations of the external ear, OR = crude odds ratio.
3.3. Epidemiology of CMEEs
Table 3 shows the epidemiology distribution of CMEEs. Males had a higher proportion of CMEEs than females (58.52% vs 41.48%), as well as microtia-anotias (63.78% vs 36.22%); There is no significant difference in the proportion of CMEEs between urban and rural areas (49.47% vs 50.53%), while rural areas had a higher proportion of microtia-anotias than urban areas (55.14% vs 44.86%); Most CMEEs occurred in maternal age 25–29 (41.97%) or 30–34 (29.18%); The proportions of CMEEs in maternal secondary school or below, senior school and university or above were 21.92%, 35.45%, and 42.62%, respectively; Most CMEEs occurred in first-born child (47.03%) or second-born child (45.80%); A total of 11.65% of CMEEs were premature infants, including 10.02% of infants with gestational age at termination of pregnancy 32–36 weeks, and 1.63% of infants with gestational age at termination of pregnancy 28 to 31 weeks; Most CMEEs were diagnosed by clinical examinations (92.34%); Most CMEEs were diagnosed postpartum (within 7 days) (96.25%); A total of 2.77% CMEEs end in deaths (Table 3).
Table 3.
Epidemiology of congenital malformations of the external ear.
| Variables | Microtia-anotia | Other CMEE | Total CMEE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Proportion (%) | n | Proportion (%) | n | Proportion (%) | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 118 | 63.78 | 600 | 57.58 | 718 | 58.52 |
| Female | 67 | 36.22 | 442 | 42.42 | 509 | 41.48 |
| Residence | ||||||
| Urban | 83 | 44.86 | 524 | 50.29 | 607 | 49.47 |
| Rural | 102 | 55.14 | 518 | 49.71 | 620 | 50.53 |
| Maternal age (yr old) | ||||||
| <20 | 5 | 2.70 | 19 | 1.82 | 24 | 1.96 |
| 20–24 | 27 | 14.59 | 123 | 11.80 | 150 | 12.22 |
| 25–29 | 74 | 40.00 | 441 | 42.32 | 515 | 41.97 |
| 30–34 | 50 | 27.03 | 308 | 29.56 | 358 | 29.18 |
| ≥35 | 29 | 15.68 | 151 | 14.49 | 180 | 14.67 |
| Maternal education level | ||||||
| Secondary school or below | 50 | 27.03 | 219 | 21.02 | 269 | 21.92 |
| Senior school | 70 | 37.84 | 365 | 35.03 | 435 | 35.45 |
| University or above | 65 | 35.14 | 458 | 43.95 | 523 | 42.62 |
| Parity | ||||||
| 0 | 2 | 1.08 | 3 | 0.29 | 5 | 0.41 |
| 1 (first-born) | 82 | 44.32 | 495 | 47.50 | 577 | 47.03 |
| 2 (second-born) | 85 | 45.95 | 477 | 45.78 | 562 | 45.80 |
| ≥3 | 16 | 8.65 | 67 | 6.43 | 83 | 6.76 |
| Gestational age at termination of pregnancy | ||||||
| 28–31 wk | 4 | 2.16 | 16 | 1.54 | 20 | 1.63 |
| 32–36 wk | 23 | 12.43 | 100 | 9.60 | 123 | 10.02 |
| ≥37 wk | 158 | 85.41 | 926 | 88.87 | 1084 | 88.35 |
| Diagnostic methods | ||||||
| B-Ultrasound | 10 | 5.41 | 20 | 1.92 | 30 | 2.44 |
| Clinical examinations | 163 | 88.11 | 970 | 93.09 | 1133 | 92.34 |
| Other | 12 | 6.49 | 52 | 4.99 | 64 | 5.22 |
| Time of diagnosis | ||||||
| Antepartum (28 wk or above) | 13 | 7.03 | 33 | 3.17 | 46 | 3.75 |
| Postpartum (within 7 d) | 172 | 92.97 | 1009 | 96.83 | 1181 | 96.25 |
| Perinatal deaths | ||||||
| Yes | 10 | 5.41 | 24 | 2.30 | 34 | 2.77 |
| No | 175 | 94.59 | 1018 | 97.70 | 1193 | 97.23 |
| Total | 185 | 100.00 | 1042 | 100.00 | 1227 | 100.00 |
CMEE = congenital malformations of the external ear.
4. Discussion
Overall, we have described the prevalence and epidemiology of CMEEs. Our study is the most recent systematic study on CMEEs in China, which may make some original contributions to the field.
There were several meaningful findings in this study. First, although many studies have reported the prevalence of microtia-anotias, there was a paucity of studies reporting the overall prevalence of CMEEs from birth defects surveillance. In this study, the prevalence of microtia-anotias was 0.22‰, consistent with the globally accepted (2.06 per 10,000 births, 95%CI: 2.02–2.10).[29] Although the overall prevalence of CMEEs was not reported in several studies, the prevalence of various specific defects (including various specific CMEEs) was reported, from which we can estimate the overall prevalence of CMEEs. E.g., 1.74‰ in Hunan Province, China, 2005 to 2014[19]; 1.26‰ in Guilin City, China, 2018 to 2020[30]; 1.36‰ in Zhejiang Province, China, 2013 to 2017.[31] It is also consistent with our study (1.21‰–1.80‰).
Second, from 2016 to 2020, the prevalence of birth defects showed a downward trend, while the prevalence of CMEEs showed no significant trend, which may be mainly related to prenatal screening and diagnosis of birth defects. Improvements in prenatal screening and diagnosis technologies caused more and more birth defects diagnosed early in pregnancy (before 28 weeks of gestation) and selective termination, which were not used to calculate the prevalence of birth defects. E.g., most Down syndrome are diagnosed and terminated in the second trimester, resulting in a low prevalence.[32] Zhou et al reported that the prevalence of Down syndrome was 1.49 per 10,000 fetuses in Hunan Province, China, 2010 to 2020,[5] which was significantly lower than the accepted prevalence (almost 1 in 600 live births).[33] In contrast, most CMEEs were diagnosed postnatally, and few deaths were associated with CMEEs, which was the reason for the relatively stable prevalence.
Third, maternal age was not associated with the CMEEs, which was inconsistent with most specific defects.[5,34–36] Different studies showed differences in the relationship between CMEEs and maternal age. E.g., several studies observed no clear relationship between maternal age and microtia-anotias or other CMEEs.[5,37,38] In contrast, several studies have shown that the prevalence of microtia tends to increase with increasing maternal age,[39,40] and Liu et al think the relationship between maternal age and microtia-anotias may be linked to some other factors, such as miscarriages.[39] In general, the causes of CMEEs are poorly understood. Some previous studies supported that microtia-anotias may be related to environmental and genetic causes,[25] whereas some studies supported that genetics had significant contributions.[41–43] Our findings support the latter view, which requires in-depth research.
Fourth, CMEEs were more common in males and urban areas, consistent with most specific defects.[5,44,45] However, the mechanism of urban-rural differences in the prevalence of CMEEs may differ from many other specific defects. Similar to the discussions above, urban-rural differences in the prevalence of birth defects (including many specific defects) may be related to etiologies, diagnosis, or surveillance,[44] while CMEEs were not as most CMEEs were diagnosed postnatally. In addition, some studies found no difference in the prevalence of CMEEs (or microtia-anotias) between males and females,[37,38] and several studies found the prevalence of CMEEs (or microtia-anotias) was higher in females than males.[46] Moreover, some studies found racial differences in the prevalence of CMEEs (or microtia-anotias).[26,29,47] It indicates that the difference in the prevalence of CMEEs between males and females, or urban areas and rural areas, may be mainly related to genetics, similar to the discussion above.
Fifth, we have described the epidemiology of CMEEs. Although we are unable to provide prevalence by demographic characteristics due to data limitations, it does present the basic features of CMEEs, such as clinical examinations diagnose most CMEEs, and males have a higher proportion of CMEEs than females, which may be useful for in-depth research in the future.
Some things could be improved in our study. First, we cannot provide the prevalence of CMEEs by demographic characteristics due to data limitations besides sex, residence, and maternal age. Second, many cases were combined with other defects, and some cases are syndromes. It requires detailed research. Third, some demographic characteristics, such as paternal age, are not included due to data limitations.
5. Conclusion
In summary, we have presented the epidemiology of CMEEs in Hunan Province, China. CMEEs were more common in males than females, in urban areas than rural areas, whereas there was no significant difference in prevalence of CMEEs by maternal age. We inferred that CMEEs may be mainly related to genetics, and the mechanism needs to be examined in the future.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all staff participating in the research from 2016 to 2020.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Xu Zhou, Junqun Fang.
Data curation: Xu Zhou, Junqun Fang, Xiaoli Wang, Haiyan Kuang, Jian He, Aihua Wang, Xinjun Hua.
Formal analysis: Xu Zhou.
Funding acquisition: Xu Zhou, Junqun Fang, Xiu Zeng, Shuxian Zeng.
Methodology: Xu Zhou, Xiu Zeng, Shuxian Zeng.
Project administration: Xu Zhou, Shuxian Zeng.
Resources: Shuxian Zeng.
Supervision: Xu Zhou, Xiu Zeng, Shuxian Zeng.
Validation: Xu Zhou, Xiu Zeng.
Visualization: Xu Zhou.
Writing – original draft: Xu Zhou, Xiaoli Wang, Haiyan Kuang.
Writing – review & editing: Xu Zhou, Junqun Fang, Xiu Zeng, Shuxian Zeng.
Abbreviations:
- CI
- confidence intervals
- CMEE
- congenital malformations of the external ear
- OR
- crude odds ratio
We certify that their manuscript is a unique submission and is not being considered for publication by any other source in any medium. Further, the manuscript has not been published, in part or in full, in any form.
Project of Hunan Provincial Maternal-Fetal Medicine and High-Risk Pregnant Women Care Clinical Research Center (NO: 2020SK4011).
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
We confirmed that informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s). Since the Health Commission of Hunan Province collects those data, and the government has emphasized the privacy policy in the “Maternal and Child Health Monitoring Manual in Hunan Province,” there is no additional written informed consent.
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
How to cite this article: Zhou X, Fang J, Wang X, Kuang H, He J, Wang A, Hua X, Zeng X, Zeng S. Epidemiology of congenital malformations of the external ear in Hunan Province, China, from 2016 to 2020. Medicine 2024;103:15(e37691).
Contributor Information
Xu Zhou, Email: chzhouxu@163.com.
Junqun Fang, Email: 40112079@qq.com.
Xiaoli Wang, Email: 309107504@qq.com.
Haiyan Kuang, Email: 15343689@qq.com.
Jian He, Email: 317616396@qq.com.
Aihua Wang, Email: 309107504@qq.com.
Xinjun Hua, Email: 1927184683@qq.com.
Shuxian Zeng, Email: 825476508@qq.com.
References
- [1].World-Health-Organization. Congenital anomalies. Secondary Congenital anomalies 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/congenital-anomalies [access date September 1, 2023].
- [2].Corsello G, Giuffrè M. Congenital malformations. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(Suppl 1):25–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Dai L, Zhu J, Liang J, et al. Birth defects surveillance in China. World J Pediatr. 2011;7:302–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Kösling S, Omenzetter M, Bartel-Friedrich S. Congenital malformations of the external and middle ear. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:269–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Zhou X, Cai S, Wang H, et al. Update from a cohort study for birth defects in Hunan Province, China, 2010-2020. Sci Rep. 2023;13:20257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Joukhadar N, McKee D, Caouette-Laberge L, et al. Management of congenital auricular anomalies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146:205e–16e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Bhatti SL, Daly LT, Mejia M, et al. Ear abnormalities. Pediatr Rev. 2021;42:180–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Horlock N, Vögelin E, Bradbury ET, et al. Psychosocial outcome of patients after ear reconstruction: a retrospective study of 62 patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54:517–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Hartzell LD, Chinnadurai S. Microtia and related facial anomalies. Clin Perinatol. 2018;45:679–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Wilkes GH, Wong J, Guilfoyle R. Microtia reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:464e–79e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Aljerian A, Gilardino MS. Treacher collins syndrome. Clin Plast Surg. 2019;46:197–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Chang CS, Bartlett SP. Deformations of the ear and their nonsurgical correction. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2019;58:798–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Daniali LN, Rezzadeh K, Shell C, et al. Classification of newborn ear malformations and their treatment with the EarWell infant ear correction system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:681–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Lennon C, Chinnadurai S. Nonsurgical management of congenital auricular anomalies. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2018;26:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Klockars T, Rautio J. Embryology and epidemiology of microtia. Facial Plast Surg. 2009;25:145–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Alasti F, Van Camp G. Genetics of microtia and associated syndromes. J Med Genet. 2009;46:361–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Bartel-Friedrich S. Congenital auricular malformations: description of anomalies and syndromes. Facial Plast Surg. 2015;31:567–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Siegert R, Magritz R. Otoplasty and auricular reconstruction. Facial Plast Surg. 2019;35:377–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Xie D, Yang T, Liu Z, et al. Epidemiology of birth defects based on a birth defect surveillance system from 2005 to 2014 in Hunan Province, China. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:349–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Mezawa H, Tomotaki A, Yamamoto-Hanada K, et al. Prevalence of congenital anomalies in the Japan environment and children’s study. J Epidemiol. 2019;29:247–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Ko JK, Lamichhane DK, Kim HC, et al. Trends in the prevalences of selected birth defects in Korea (2008-2014). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Mumpe-Mwanja D, Barlow-Mosha L, Williamson D, et al. A hospital-based birth defects surveillance system in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Zhu J, Wang Y, Liang J, et al. An epidemiological investigation of anotia and microtia in China during 1988-1992. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi. 2000;35:62–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Luquetti DV, Heike CL, Hing AV, et al. Microtia: epidemiology and genetics. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A:124–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Forrester MB, Merz RD. Descriptive epidemiology of anotia and microtia, Hawaii, 1986-2002. Congenit Anom (Kyoto). 2005;45:119–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Zhang TY, Bulstrode N, Chang KW, et al. International consensus recommendations on microtia, aural atresia and functional ear reconstruction. J Int Adv Otol. 2019;15:204–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Petersen MR, Deddens JA. A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Luquetti DV, Leoncini E, Mastroiacovo P. Microtia-anotia: a global review of prevalence rates. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2011;91:813–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Yang X, Zeng J, Gu Y, et al. Birth defects data from hospital-based birth defect surveillance in Guilin, China, 2018-2020. Front Public Health. 2022;10:961613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Zhang X, Chen L, Wang X, et al. Changes in maternal age and prevalence of congenital anomalies during the enactment of China’s universal two-child policy (2013-2017) in Zhejiang Province, China: an observational study. PLoS Med. 2020;17:e1003047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Huete-García A, Otaola-Barranquero M. Demographic assessment of down syndrome: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [33].Catalano RA. Down syndrome. Surv Ophthalmol. 1990;34:385–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [34].Mikwar M, MacFarlane AJ, Marchetti F. Mechanisms of oocyte aneuploidy associated with advanced maternal age. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2020;785:108320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [35].Harris BS, Bishop KC, Kemeny HR, et al. Risk factors for birth defects. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72:123–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [36].Chen LJ, Chiou JY, Huang JY, et al. Birth defects in Taiwan: A 10-year nationwide population-based, cohort study. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020;119(1 Pt 3):553–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [37].Shaw GM, Carmichael SL, Kaidarova Z, et al. Epidemiologic characteristics of anotia and microtia in California, 1989-1997. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2004;70:472–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [38].Husain T, Langlois PH, Sever LE, et al. Descriptive epidemiologic features shared by birth defects thought to be related to vascular disruption in Texas, 1996-2002. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2008;82:435–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [39].Liu Q, Fan X, Liu S, et al. Maternal risk factors for severe microtia/atresia in China: a case-control study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;115:139–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [40].Canfield MA, Langlois PH, Nguyen LM, et al. Epidemiologic features and clinical subgroups of anotia/microtia in Texas. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2009;85:905–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [41].Artunduaga MA, Quintanilla-Dieck Mde L, Greenway S, et al. A classic twin study of external ear malformations, including microtia. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1216–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [42].Chafai Elalaoui S, Cherkaoui Jaouad I, Rifai L, et al. Autosomal dominant microtia. Eur J Med Genet. 2010;53:100–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [43].Llano-Rivas I, González-del Angel A, del Castillo V, et al. Microtia: a clinical and genetic study at the National Institute of Pediatrics in Mexico City. Arch Med Res. 1999;30:120–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [44].Benavides E, Lupo PJ, Sosa M, et al. Urban-rural residence and birth defects prevalence in Texas: a phenome-wide association study. Pediatr Res. 2022;91:1587–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [45].Michalski AM, Richardson SD, Browne ML, et al. Sex ratios among infants with birth defects, National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997-2009. Am J Med Genet A. 2015;167A:1071–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [46].Cheng YF, Xirasagar S, Liu TC, et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence of microtia: a nationwide population-based study from Taiwan. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278:4315–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [47].Cabrejo R, Persing J, Alperovich M. Epidemiologic assessment of microtia in over 23 million consecutive United States births. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30:342–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]