4.6 Article

Hypospadias Rates in New York State are Not Increasing

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 181, 期 5, 页码 2291-2294

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.059

关键词

epidemiology; gonadal dysgenesis; hypospadias; pediatrics; phthalic acids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The testicular dysgenesis syndrome describes urogenital abnormalities associated with exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors such as phthalates, specifically decreased semen quality, and increased rates of testis cancer and hypospadias. Recently there has been concern that these abnormalities described in animal studies may also be present in humans. To determine if hypospadias rates are increasing, we retrospectively reviewed the total prevalence of hypospadias in New York State from 1992 to 2005, categorized by maternal age younger than 35 years and 35 years or older. Materials and Methods: Hypospadias rates were obtained from the New York State Congenital Malformations Registry from 1992 to 2005. An analysis was also performed on the rates of children with hypospadias who had mothers younger than 35 years and mothers 35 years or older. This investigation was approved by the Columbia University internal review board. Results: There was no statistical change in hypospadias rates in New York State from 1992 to 2005 (r = 0.127, p = 0.6). Overall the mean SE prevalence rate was 34.9 +/- 0.36 per 10,000 live births. However, mean SE hypospadias rates in children of mothers 35 years old or older (38.7 +/- 0.7) were significantly greater than those in children of mothers younger than 35 years (34.1 +/- 0.386, t test p <0.01). Conclusions: Hypospadias rates have not changed in New York State from 1992 to 2005. Additionally advanced maternal age continues to be a risk factor for hypospadias. Combined with previous studies that demonstrate sperm counts are not declining, these data suggest that the testicular dysgenesis syndrome described in animal models may not be evident in humans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据