Type of Article:  Original

Volume 7; Issue 2.1 (April 2019)

Page No.: 6390-6396

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2019.124


Amandeep Kaur 1, Mahesh Sharma 2.

1 Demonstrator,  Department of Anatomy,  Government Medical College & Hospital, Anatomy Department, E- block, Sector 32-, Chandigarh, India.

*2 Professor & Head of the Department, MBBS, MS, Human  Anatomy,  Government Medical College & Hospital, Anatomy Department, E- block, Sector 32-, Chandigarh, India.

Address for correspondence: Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Professor & Head of the Department, MBBS, MS Human  Anatomy,  Government Medical College & Hospital, Anatomy Department, E- block, Sector 32-, Chandigarh    (India); 160030, contact no: 9646121529, Phone no: +91-0172-266523, Fax no: +91-0172-2609360 E-Mail: drmahesh1965@gmail.com


Background: The occurrence of congenital anomalies is increasing in the present era. The incidence is estimated to be 3-7% of the congenital disorders.

Aim: The present study is focused on the spina bifida and to know the incidence of spinal defects in north Indian population. This study will be helpful for providing baseline data from the north Indian population.

Methodology: The present study was done on 1400 fetuses which were sent by gynecology and obstetrics department of GMCH Sec. 32, Chandigarh to anatomy department for autopsy purpose during period of 2008 to 2017. In every case, location and morphology of spinal defects were observed.

Results: The present study showed 11.7% cases with spinal defects, out of these, 1.2%  spina bifida closed (occulta) and 10.5% spina bifida open defects were  noted  which included 1.2% ventral spinal defects, 31.7%  with  meningocele, 24.3%  myelomeningocele, 28.6% myelocele and 12.8% with rachischisis.

Conclusions: It is important to note the detection of congenital anomalies in early stage of gestation. It is advantageous for the obstetrician in planning the line of management whether to continue the pregnancy or not.

Key words: Congenital Anomalies, Spinal defects, Meningocele, Myelomeningocele, Myelocele, Rachischisis.


  1. Park K. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine.18th 2005; 423-425.
  2. Sankar VH, Phadke SR. Clinical utility of fetal autopsy and comparison with prenatal ultrasound findings. J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 224-229.
  3. Mitchell LE. Epidemiology of neural tube defects. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 2005; 135: 88- 94.
  4. Andrew JC and Nicholas DEG. Genetics and Development of neural tube defects. J Pathol. 2010; 220: 217-230.
  5. Aguilera S, Soothill P, Denbow M, Pople I. Prognosis of spina bifida in the era of prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2009; 2: 68-74.
  6. Himabindu N, Asra A, Saritha S, Ramani, Nagajyothi D, Gayathri P. Comprehensive study of neural tube defects in 1000 foetuses with clinical spectrum. Int J Anat Res. 2015; 3:1456-1462.
  7. Oakeshott P, Hunt GM, Poulton A, Reid F. Open spina bifida: birth findings predict long-term outcome. Arch Dis Child. 2012; 97:474–476.
  8. Sadler TW. Langman’s Medical Embryology.11th Lippincott – Wilkins, Philadelphia, London. 2009; 302-316.
  9. Sperber GH, Gorlin RJ. Head and neck. In: Gilbert- Barness E, editor. Potter’s Pathology of the Fetus and Infant. St. Louis, MO, USA: Mosby-Year Book,
  10. Larroche JC, Encha-Razavi F, de Vries L. Central nervous system. In: Gilbert-Barness E, editor. Potter’s Pathology of the Fetus and Infant. St. Louis, MO, USA: Mosby-Year Book 1997.
  11. Squier MV. Malformations of the central nervous system and hydrocephalus. In: Keeling JW, editor. Fetal and Neonatal Pathology 3rd edition. London: Springer: 2001.
  12. Menasinkai BS. A study of neural tube defects. J Anat. Soc India. 2010; 59:162-167.
  13. Khattak TS, Naheed T, Akhtar S,Jamal T. Incidence and Risk Factors for Neural Tube Defects in Peshawar. Gomal journal of Medical Sciences. 2008; 6 :1-4.
  14. Deepasree Jaganmohan, Prema Subramaniam, Nagarajan Krishnan , Preetam Mahajan. Two cases of craniospinal rachischisis totalis: Role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and review of neural tube defects in the Indian context with implications for folate fortification.  Journal of pediatric Neurosciences. 2017; 12: 32-35.
  15. Nielsen LAG, Maroun LL, Broholm H, Laursen H, Graem N. Neural tube defects and associated anomalies in a fetal and perinatal autopsy series. APMIS. 2006; 114:239-246.
  16. Botto LD, Moore CA, Khoury JM, Erickson JD. Neural tube defects – Review articles. Medical Progress. 1999; 341:1509-1517.
  17. Padmanabhan R, Singh S. Axial Skeletal Malformations Associated with Cranioschisis Aperta and Exencephaly. Actaorthop. 1983; 54:104-112.
  18. R. Amorim,M. A. C. Lima, E. E. Castilla, and I. M. Orioli, “Non-Latin European descent could be a requirement for association of NTDs and MTHFR variant 677C > T: a metaanalysis,”American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 2007; 143:1726–1732.
  19. Doudney K, Moore GE, Stanier P, Ybot- Gonzalez P, Paternotte C, Greene NDE, et al. “Analysis of the planar cell polarity gene Vangl 2 and its co-expressed paralogue Vangl1 in neural tube defect patients”. American Journal of Medical Genetics. 2005; 136: 90–92.
  20. Lei Y, Zhu H, Yang W,  Ross ME, Shaw GM, and Finnell RH. “Identification of novel CELSR1 mutations in spina  ” PLoS ONE.  2014; 9: 1-3.
  21. Kibar Z, Torban E, McDearmid JR, Reynolds A, Berghout J, Mathier M, et al. “Mutations in VANGL1 associated with neural-tube defects.” New England Journal of Medicine, 2007; 356:1432–1437.

Cite this article: Amandeep Kaur, Mahesh Sharma. SPINA BIFIDA – A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY. Int J Anat Res 2019;7(2.1):6390-6396. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2019.124