Prevalence of Congenital Cutaneous Anomalies in 1000 Newborns and a Review of the Literature

Sezgi Sarikaya Solak; Ilknur Kivanc Altunay; Gulsen Tukenmez Demirci; Burce Can

doi:10.1055/s-0035-1556884

American Journal of Perinatology, Table of Contents

Am J Perinatol 2016; 33(01): 079-083
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1556884

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Prevalence of Congenital Cutaneous Anomalies in 1000 Newborns and a Review of the Literature

Authors

Sezgi Sarikaya Solak

¹Department of Dermatology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Ilknur Kivanc Altunay

¹Department of Dermatology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Gulsen Tukenmez Demirci

²Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Istanbul Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Burce Can

³Department of Dermatology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Goztepe Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Objective There are limited reports studying on congenital cutaneous anomalies in newborns, particularly in Turkey. Some of congenital cutaneous anomalies serve as an important clue for accompanying syndromes or other medical conditions. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of congenital cutaneous anomalies in newborns and to discuss their clinical significance with a brief review of literature.

Study Design A total of 1,000 newborns were examined by a dermatologist in a hospital-based, cross-sectional, prospective study between October 2011 and April 2012.

Results We observed 11 different congenital cutaneous anomalies in 48 newborns of 1,000 (4.8%). The most commonly seen anomalies were sacral dimple, accessory nipple, acrochordon, hypospadias, open spinal dysraphism, and accessory tragus. None of the newborns with cutaneous anomalies had any association.

Conclusions Although congenital cutaneous anomalies are rare in newborns, clinicians should be aware of them as they may be in association with syndromes and other medical conditions. It is also important to give appropriately provided information to avoid parents concerns.

Keywords

newborn - cutaneous anomalies - sacral dimple - accessory nipple - accessory tragus

Full Text

References

References
1 Monteagudo B, Labandeira J, León-Muiños E , et al. Frequency of birthmarks and transient skin lesions in newborns according to maternal factors (diseases, drugs, dietary supplements, and tobacco). Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2011; 77 (4) 535
2 Sachdeva M, Kaur S, Nagpal M, Dewan SP. Cutaneous lesions in new born. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2002; 68 (6) 334-337
3 Zagne V, Fernandes NC. Dermatoses in the first 72 h of life: a clinical and statistical survey. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2011; 77 (4) 470-476
4 Haveri FT, Inamadar AC. A cross-sectional prospective study of cutaneous lesions in newborn. ISRN Dermatol [eCollection] 2014. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918370/pdf/ISRN.DERMATOLOGY2014-360590.pdf Accessed December 22, 2014
5 Gokdemir G, Erdogan HK, Köşlü A, Baksu B. Cutaneous lesions in Turkish neonates born in a teaching hospital. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2009; 75 (6) 638
6 Ferahbas A, Utas S, Akcakus M, Gunes T, Mistik S. Prevalence of cutaneous findings in hospitalized neonates: a prospective observational study. Pediatr Dermatol 2009; 26 (2) 139-142
7 Ekiz O, Gül U, Mollamahmutoğlu L, Gönül M. Skin findings in newborns and their relationship with maternal factors: observational research. Ann Dermatol 2013; 25 (1) 1-4
8 Sarikaya Solak S, Tukenmez Demirci G, Kivanc Altunay I, Kucukunal A. The relationship of birthmarks observed in 1000 Newborns with neonatal/maternal parameters: A prospective and cross-sectional study. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 2013; 33: 1388-1394
9 McGovern M, Mulligan S, Carney O, Wall D, Moylett E. Ultrasound investigation of sacral dimples and other stigmata of spinal dysraphism. Arch Dis Child 2013; 98 (10) 784-786
10 Kriss VM, Desai NS. Occult spinal dysraphism in neonates: assessment of high-risk cutaneous stigmata on sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171 (6) 1687-1692
11 Robinson AJ, Russell S, Rimmer S. The value of ultrasonic examination of the lumbar spine in infants with specific reference to cutaneous markers of occult spinal dysraphism. Clin Radiol 2005; 60 (1) 72-77
12 Urbani CE, Betti R. Accessory mammary tissue associated with congenital and hereditary nephrourinary malformations. Int J Dermatol 1996; 35 (5) 349-352
13 Ferrara P, Giorgio V, Vitelli O , et al. Polythelia: still a marker of urinary tract anomalies in children?. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2009; 43 (1) 47-50
14 Grimshaw EC, Cohen PR. Supernumerary nipple and seminoma: case report and review of polythelia and genitourinary cancers. Dermatol Online J 2013; 19 (1) 4
15 Kugelman A, Hadad B, Ben-David J, Podoshin L, Borochowitz Z, Bader D. Preauricular tags and pits in the newborn: the role of hearing tests. Acta Paediatr 1997; 86 (2) 170-172
16 Bahrani B, Khachemoune A. Review of accessory tragus with highlights of its associated syndromes. Int J Dermatol 2014; 53 (12) 1442-1446
17 Scheinfeld NS, Silverberg NB, Weinberg JM, Nozad V. The preauricular sinus: a review of its clinical presentation, treatment, and associations. Pediatr Dermatol 2004; 21 (3) 191-196
18 Roth DA, Hildesheimer M, Bardenstein S , et al. Preauricular skin tags and ear pits are associated with permanent hearing impairment in newborns. Pediatrics 2008; 122 (4) e884-e890
19 Beder LB, Kemaloğlu YK, Maral I, Serdaroğlu A, Bumin MA. A study on the prevalence of accessory auricle anomaly in Turkey. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2002; 63 (1) 25-27
20 Firat Y, Sireci S, Yakinci C , et al. Isolated preauricular pits and tags: is it necessary to investigate renal abnormalities and hearing impairment?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265 (9) 1057-1060
21 Leung AK, Robson WL. Association of preauricular sinuses and renal anomalies. Urology 1992; 40 (3) 259-261
22 Kohelet D, Arbel E. A prospective search for urinary tract abnormalities in infants with isolated preauricular tags. Pediatrics 2000; 105 (5) E61
23 Wang RY, Earl DL, Ruder RO, Graham Jr JM. Syndromic ear anomalies and renal ultrasounds. Pediatrics 2001; 108 (2) E32
24 Deshpande SA, Watson H. Renal ultrasonography not required in babies with isolated minor ear anomalies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006; 91 (1) F29-F30
25 Tsai FJ, Tsai CH. Birthmarks and congenital skin lesions in Chinese newborns. J Formos Med Assoc 1993; 92 (9) 838-841
26 Browning JC. Aplasia cutis congenita: approach to evaluation and management. Dermatol Ther 2013; 26 (6) 439-444
27 Kraft KH, Shukla AR, Canning DA. Hypospadias. Urol Clin North Am 2010; 37 (2) 167-181
28 Kass E, Kogan SJ, Manley C ; American Academy of Pediatrics. Timing of elective surgery on the genitalia of male children with particular reference to the risks, benefits, and psychological effects of surgery and anesthesia. Pediatrics 1996; 97 (4) 590-594
29 Bellet JS. Developmental anomalies of the skin. Semin Perinatol 2013; 37 (1) 20-25
30 Mueller DT, Callanan VP. Congenital malformations of the oral cavity. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2007; 40 (1) 141-160 , vii