Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1998;79:F168-F173 ( November )
Compiling a national register of babies born with
anophthalmia/microphthalmia in England 1988-94
Araceli Busby,a
Helen Dolk,a
Richard Collin,b
R Barry Jones,b
Robin Winterc
a Environmental Epidemiology Unit
Department of Public Health and Policy London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel Street
London WC1E 7HT, b Moorfields Eye Hospital London, c Institute of Child Health London
Correspondence to: Dr A Busby.
Accepted 5 June 1998
AIM
To describe the prevalence of
anophthalmia/microphthalmia in babies born in England 1988-94, as well
as their overall survival, and the incidence of associated eye and
non-eye malformations; to determine the usefulness of different sources
of medical and health service information for establishing a
retrospective register of anophthalmia/microphthalmia.
METHODS
Multiple sources for initial
(retrospective) case ascertainment were surveyed, followed by
questionnaires to clinicians to establish severity, associated
malformations, and aetiology for England, 1988-94. The population
surveyed was all births in England for this time period (4 570 350 births). Cases included live births, stillbirths, or terminations after
prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly, with
anophthalmia/microphthalmia, with or without other malformations and
syndromes. Trisomy 13 was subsequently excluded.
RESULTS
The proportion of cases notified by any
one information source was not more than 26% (Office for National
Statistics Register 22%, paediatricians 26%, district sources 25%).
Sixty nine per cent of cases (51% of severe cases) were notified by
only one source. A total of 449 cases were reported, prevalence 1.0 per 10 000 births. The prevalence was stable over time, although the proportion notified by clinicians rose in more recent years. Thirty four per cent of affected babies had mild microphthalmia. Of those with
severe anophthalmia/microphthalmia, 51% were bilateral, other eye
malformations were present in 72%, non-eye malformations in 65%, and
a "known aetiology" was attributed in 22%. Three quarters of those
severely affected survived infancy.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite high response rates from the
sources of information contacted, the lack of duplication between
sources indicates the difficulties of retrospective ascertainment and
the need for multiple sources when establishing a register.
Anophthalmos/microphthalmos is usually associated with other
malformations. Most cases are of unknown aetiology.
Keywords:
congenital malformation;
anophthalmia;
microphthalmia;
register;
epidemiology
© 1998 by Archives of Disease in Childhood