TABLE 2.
Other Minor Anomalies of Study Children in the Midwestern City by Diagnosis
| Minor Anomaly Variable | FAS | PFAS | ARND | Controlsa | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 12 | n = 23 | n = 13 | n = 162 | ||
| % OR | % OR | % OR | % OR | ||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Maxillary arc, cm | 23.3 (1.2) | 23.9 (1.0) | 24.3 (1.1) | 25.0 (1.5) | <.001 |
| Mandibular arc, cm | 23.8 (1.3) | 24.9 (1.3) | 25.1 (1.3) | 25.9 (1.3) | <.001 |
| ICD percentile | 30.1 (20.4) | 44.7 (20.4) | 41.5 (19.1) | 55.5 (22.1) | <.001b |
| IPD percentile | 37.3 (17.4) | 37.3 (15.1) | 53.7 (25.0) | 59.5 (24.2) | <.001c |
| Hypoplastic midface, % | 58.3 | 52.2 | 53.8 | 26.8 | .005 |
| Epicanthic folds, % | 41.7 | 30.4 | 7.7 | 17.3 | .065 |
| Clinodactyly, % | 41.7 | 60.9 | 38.5 | 28.6 | .018 |
| Camptodactyly, % | 16.7 | 0.0 | 15.4 | 3.0 | .016 |
ICD, inner canthal distance; IPD, inter-pupillary distance.
a
Two controls reported as alcohol-exposed during pregnancy.
b
Dunnett’s C post hoc analysis shows differences between FAS and controls.
c
Dunnett’s C post hoc analysis shows differences between FAS and controls; PFAS and controls.