##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Intrauterine growth retardation represents the third cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality after prematurity and malformations. This pathology is a real public health problem.

Objectives: To determine the epidemiological profile of IUGR newborns, their morbidity and mortality, their immediate fate and to evaluate the correlation between certain maternal parameters and IUGR.

Methods: This is a descriptive and analytical study conducted between January 2012 and January 2014, the results were processed on software 3.5.3 Epi info.

Results: We recorded 8114 deliveries including 150 newborn IUGR cases, representing 1.8% of births. For the maternal characteristics: the average age was 31 ±6.7 years. The percentages of pre-eclampsia, gravidic hypertension and chronic hypertension were found respectively in 60%, 31.3% and 4.7% of the pregnant women. Prematurity was noted in 82.1% with an average gestational age of 35.2 ±2.7 years. 86% of the cases were extracted by the high route right away. Neonatal complications were dominated by perinatal asphyxia (5%), hypoglycaemia (4%) and respiratory distress (2%).

Conclusion: Efforts remain to be made in terms of screening, prenatal consultations and management of pregnant women with IUGR in order to improve the neonatal prognosis.

References

  1. Imdad A, Yakoob MY, Siddiqui S, Ahmed Z. Screening and triage of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in general population and high risk pregnancies: a systematic review with a focus on reduction of IUGR related stillbirths. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11(Suppl 3): S1.
     Google Scholar
  2. Catov JM, Nohr EA, Olsen J, Ness RB. Chronic hypertensionrelated to risk forpreterm and term small for gestationalage births. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112: 290-6
     Google Scholar
  3. Odibo AO, Nelson D, Stamilio DM, Sehdev HM, Macones GA. Advanced maternal age is an independent risk fac-tor for intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Perinatol. 2006; 23: 3258.
     Google Scholar
  4. Beard JR, Lincoln D, Donoghue D, Taylor D, Summerhayes R, Dunn TM, et al. Socioeconomic and maternal determinants of small-for-gestational age births: patterns of increasing disparity. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009; 88: 575-83.
     Google Scholar
  5. Rakotozanany L. Facteurs relatifs au faible poids de naissance au CHUA gynécologie-obstétrique de Béfelatanana. Mémoire pour l’obtention de diplôme d’tudes spéciales de santé publique. 2004; 103: 51. French.
     Google Scholar
  6. Boulaid L. Prise en charge du retard de croissance intra-uterin. A propos de 35 cas. M. S. Thesis, CHU Hassan II University 2011. French.
     Google Scholar
  7. Howarth C, Gazis A, James D. Associations of Type 1 diabetesmellitus, maternal vascular disease and complications of pregnancy. Diabet Med. 2007; 24: 1229-34.
     Google Scholar
  8. Kanda E, Matsuda Y, Makino Y, Matsui H. Risk factors associated with altered fetal growth in patients with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25: 1390-4.
     Google Scholar
  9. Shah PS, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of LBW/PT births. Parity and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta‐analyses. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2010; 89(7): 862-75.
     Google Scholar
  10. Askie LM, Duley L, Henderson-Smart DJ, Stewart LA, Group PC. Antiplatelet agents for prevention of preeclampsia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2007; 369: 17918.
     Google Scholar
  11. Kabore P, Donnen P, Dramaix M. Facteurs de risque obstétricaux du petit poids de naissance à terme en milieu rural sahélien. Santé Publique. 2007; 19(6): 489-97. French.
     Google Scholar
  12. Han Z, Mulla S, Beyene J, Liao G, McDonald SD. Maternal underweight and the risk of pretermbirth and low birth weight: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2011; 40: 65-101.
     Google Scholar
  13. Gardosi J, Francis A. Adverse pregnancy outcome and association with small for gestational age birthweight by customized and population-based percentiles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 28e1-8.
     Google Scholar