- 註冊時間
- 2023-5-6
- 精華
- 在線時間
- 小時
- 米币
-
- 最後登錄
- 1970-1-1
累計簽到:5 天 連續簽到:1 天
|
發表於 2025-1-4 02:48:33
|
顯示全部樓層
Mohamed El Kholy , Rasha Tarif Hamza * , Mohamed Saleh and Heba Elsedfy4 L+ e. ~) W4 d4 D4 M
Penile length and genital anomalies in Egyptian1 z' R9 n( U0 ]( X2 p6 M+ t
male newborns: epidemiology and influence of! P8 K% |. I; A9 {/ z9 _
endocrine disruptors6 w. M1 p+ L9 K2 j B
Abstract: This is an attempt to establish the normal. O9 j, C- p. h, ]5 i4 a# E# R. v6 s
stretched penile length and prevalence of male geni-: L% ~2 O7 n4 q( b5 {; r
tal anomalies in full-term neonates and whether they7 u' D8 b; G1 I5 ~6 o0 l
are influenced by prenatal parental exposure to endo-
P" Y, \" p3 e7 Q \% x# ?3 Scrine-disrupting chemicals. A thousand newborns were
5 Y2 r2 S6 J. K9 Q( e" E. Jincluded; their mothers were subjected to the following
+ D4 _* `2 H, z: bquestionnaire: parents ’ age, residence, occupation, con-
4 Y; e! x, S" O! j8 H+ |tact with insecticides and pesticides, antenatal exposure
* G! @' D! b2 t) E, u1 ]to cigarette smoke or drugs, family history of genital0 F* K6 e) f% A& r' U$ h: N7 y- q
anomalies, phytoestrogens intake and history of in vitro
& _, l, c# X5 v. n! d2 ffertilization or infertility. Free testosterone was measured
; [* s2 N% p: O. W. w- min 150 neonates in the first day of life. Mean penile length6 E( \. z; C2 t3 E9 x5 w6 Q2 r9 J
was 3.4 ± 0.37 cm. A penile length < 2.5 cm was considered
0 Y) |7 z% \1 u2 \( E. f2 D8 Jmicropenis. Prevalence of genital anomalies was 1.8 %
+ Y0 R# I/ u+ p0 }0 V2 ?9 V9 }; N+ l(hypospadias 83.33 % ). There was a higher rate of anoma-) Q# f9 D/ Q' T' l& G- M9 L
lies in those exposed to endocrine disruptors (EDs; 7.4 % )
8 Y9 c$ ?- e3 g; z( v# v1 r! \than in the non-exposed (1.2 % ; p < 0.0001; odds ratio 6,5 `6 n! d: M/ u5 p! P) v
95 % confidence interval 2 – 16). Mean penile length showed
8 G) }% Q; l$ e0 {, ra linear relationship with free testosterone and was lower4 o+ c; f& z- i1 `- Q
in neonates exposed to EDs.3 }2 S) q/ v c* m* U# o% ~6 _0 J
Keywords: endocrine disruptors; genital anomalies; male;
[6 f8 }0 G+ c0 z+ Gpenile length; testosterone.
y8 T7 [9 c# ?6 C9 p5 }% w*Corresponding author : Rasha Tarif Hamza, MD, Faculty of
% U" W1 j9 _3 K/ U6 |- o, T1 C! P0 LMedicine, Department of Pediatrics, Ain Shams University, 36
3 x4 [6 z/ A( Q* l3 ~2 NHisham Labib Street, off Makram Ebeid Street, Nasr City, Cairo
F! Y+ ^9 A: ~; | O+ g$ l11371, Cairo, Egypt, Phone: + 20-2-22734727, Fax: + 20-2-26904430 , \1 B" H: t0 `( A
E-mail: [email protected]
2 @7 Y7 K# w. W" f- ZMohamed El Kholy, Mohamed Saleh and Heba Elsedfy: Faculty of, H j# H3 p u/ r
Medicine , Department of Pediatrics, Ain Shams University, Cairo,- a& |2 y" w8 U8 ^; P% Z
Egypt
" R: T# G+ I% Q* U* ]) o; tIntroduction
4 O: o2 C! K' g# \; [: S( ^; ^$ ^Determination of penile size is employed clinically in8 V5 P; b! L- m8 P$ M/ i+ p
the evaluation of children with abnormal genital devel-) e8 N7 v h- l& k. V
opment, such as, for example, micropenis, defined as a7 n3 Z' U1 R# c9 n
penis that is normal in terms of shape and function, but is
3 L" L! q# W) ?more than 2.5 standard deviations (SD) smaller than mean
0 P' j: P2 ^" Bsize in terms of length (1) . However, these measurements2 x! k# M0 r$ n- ~3 Z
can be subject to significant international variations, in/ M- ^) ]) A4 T7 ~7 g
addition to being obtained with different methodologies: n2 t6 L4 H" z0 \) h
in some cases (2) .
+ r. j( _4 r# h3 ?7 T2 zOver the past 20 years, the documented increase in- p u! B4 T4 `1 Q8 }" U2 K4 c$ i
disorders of male sexual differentiation, such as hypo-
5 ]7 D' J7 U8 l1 o- {' J3 Vspadias, cryptorchidism, and micropenis, has led to the1 H+ G" y/ M m8 L( o9 }$ \. M
suspicion that environmental chemicals are detrimental. n' ?* G1 q; m) Y
to normal male genital development in utero (3) . The so- b0 a. N5 K' _' |+ b) L
called Sharpe-Skakkebaek hypothesis offered a possible
! a4 ~1 z! F8 D& h/ ], M( `$ Lcommon cause and toxicological mechanism for abnor-( K; Q# C5 N; ?* M2 X0 }0 M- J9 {
malities in men and boys – that is, increased exposure to. V6 z+ r4 D) e' Q9 H- I
oestrogen in utero may interfere with the multiplication/ _, D! }/ q, ^+ J
of fetal Sertoli cells, resulting in hormonally mediated/ o4 A2 T8 L' C/ H) A
developmental effects and, after puberty, reduced quality% [. i* q1 r! R" R6 B9 d
of semen (4) . E9 {0 |# P6 `
It has been proposed that these disorders are part of
" m& ^, D4 v+ C; G, R5 ?* Sa single common underlying entity known as the testicu-4 {& ~1 I9 A& ~3 T+ m6 b1 F
lar dysgenesis syndrome (TDS) (5) . TDS comprises various
4 c. J2 T# h/ N# I" Q" m- Saspects of impaired gonadal development and function,
0 R8 \/ j5 J' `* r- t t: Lincluding abnormal spermatogenesis, cryptorchidism,
3 ]! f" M( N) V9 u/ k: Y: I1 |; D! lhypospadias, and testicular cancer (6) .. [) m: m0 _% p9 L1 v1 D
The etiological basis for this condition is complex' p, s$ B$ z4 [, ]
and is thought to be due to a combination of both genetic
4 B& ~4 j5 k1 mand environmental factors that result in the disruption; p, A; F( o: N0 J- @4 `6 v7 v& d
of normal gonadal development during fetal life. First,
7 R% W9 f& p" ^. Cit was proposed that environmental chemicals with oes-$ c" Z$ Z/ ?8 d" b" L
trogen-like actions could have adverse effects on male
* {" R2 B' |$ X# r* ?9 Qgonadal development. This has since been expanded to
E1 W7 J! A$ Y( P; b$ m) \: Cinclude environmental chemicals with anti-androgen
6 v% Z9 D- O$ u1 G* E5 Tactions and it is now thought that an imbalance between
9 Q( M6 L' z6 k! U* j8 g+ jandrogen and oestrogen activity is the key mechanism by
3 m: j, _+ O# I0 k7 E1 L5 ywhich exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)
K1 b6 i. S6 l" C5 E. Jresults in the development of TDS and male reproductive
+ l2 [5 D7 K4 p+ t+ B6 Z3 ]tract abnormalities (5) .: q- W9 r+ b7 n3 \# U
With the increasing use of environmental chemicals,
0 }6 M% W/ N" m/ n3 f8 ^0 Tan attempt was made to establish the normal stretched
4 t- [ P* A6 S9 @penile length as well as the prevalence of male genital# H- m# D7 y! o7 F$ X
anomalies in full-term neonates and whether there is an
( I# h! ?. q9 A( Q1 q) |influence of prenatal parental exposure to potential EDCs2 v% ?! O5 M* j; j- N1 v
on these parameters.
% T( \: H7 x" V& RBrought to you by | University of California - San Francisco
8 L! v+ }' y9 MAuthenticated+ N; f& z& _( z$ @6 u; @
Download Date | 2/18/15 4:26 AM) A5 t/ v" e( Q
510 El Kholy et al.: Penile length and male genital anomalies9 V9 D) @: d/ t. U1 ?6 r2 D
Subjects and methods
1 T5 w; g' w1 z6 J- O6 Z2 o( [1 I' mStudy population
9 q5 k! m' v/ K$ B4 _' IThe study was conducted as a prospective cohort study at the Univer-
7 u0 P; J) E+ }8 W) B6 Psity Hospital of Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. A sample of 1000
. p, v' ~( \" \+ K+ C' n W( I0 ymale full-term newborns was studied.
$ l3 ~' T; t v# ESampling technique
: f: O N' ]1 m( _$ a$ m7 _) v9 dThree days per week were selected randomly out of 7 days. In each
# n1 _) O6 v! e" ~ C3 |2 {day, all male full-term deliveries were selected during the time of fi eld0 Z2 P! V3 e8 F- L, O
study (12 h) during the period from March 2007 to November 2007.
! M) u4 I' A' }2 F$ iStatistical analysis; h! t1 m1 l% p1 T" c7 V- n, o
The computer program SPSS for Windows release 11.0 (SPSS Inc.,
- P3 X- ]# _- R/ Q. h! X f) p% NChicago, IL, USA) was used for data entry and analysis. All numeric
$ U) M" Q4 l( O s6 N% L7 @* kvariables were expressed as mean ± SD. Comparison of diff erent vari-
3 q+ o$ t9 e: a0 p+ ]5 X' Xables between two groups was done using the Student ’ s t-test for
) f4 Q% J3 p% i6 d( unormally distributed variables. Comparisons of multiple groups were
$ t7 _5 L: b$ ^+ v% u# Vdone using analysis of variance and post hoc tests for normally dis-4 Z6 [7 D7 D/ }6 T& N( H, z# g
tributed variables. The χ 2 -test was used to compare the frequency of
5 J" U, ~/ A+ S1 rqualitative variables among the diff erent groups; the Fisher exact test
2 ^$ o- [0 G4 E5 ]was performed in tables containing values < 5. The Pearson correla-) U" ~8 X0 i( c5 F" b1 I
tion test was used for correlating various variables. For all tests, a3 |' m2 X( g- t
probability (p) < 0.05 was considered signifi cant (10) .
2 ~( a9 m! p) k0 VResults
3 e; z( l: y% m3 d8 {) BData collected3 S; N1 M0 b& v" X
A researcher completed a structured questionnaire during inter-
# x4 v8 f- p8 s% [views with the mothers. The questionnaire gathered information4 s, W# r0 s' L+ q: `- I0 P
on the following: age of parents; residence; occupation of the
1 |4 U$ C* a! t0 @parents; contact with insecticides and pesticides and their type and
( I( X1 P/ X- v b) I- @+ p) q" Sfrequency of contact; maternal exposure to cigarette smoke during, F/ I' `# Z3 H
pregnancy; maternal drug history during gestation; family history. S" u* J4 z' j
of hypospadias, cryptorchidism, or other congenital anomalies; in-# D% H* J! Y- n, W$ @
take of foods containing phytoestrogens, e.g., soy beans, olive oil,
9 o9 E% H' V( H. X4 B( d3 J m% ?garlic, hummus, sesame seed, and their frequency; and, also, his-
% S# F1 b% \/ {tory of in vitro fertilization or infertility (type of infertility and drugs
7 f& k# {) J0 A; Y A4 v9 pgiven).
2 {! k2 s0 B% dEnvironmental exposure to chemicals was evaluated for its po-
G* \" v" U% Q4 t! K L3 ptential of causing endocrine disruption. Chemicals were classifi ed
% U: J i1 }0 v+ }7 Y2 v4 F cinto two groups on the basis of scientifi c evidence for their having
2 F k, V7 }& {. qendocrine-disrupting properties: group I: evidence of endocrine dis-2 d8 r: g$ B( L: W ^; g! U
ruption high and medium exposure concern; group II: no evidence of& `- s* K7 j) h$ q
endocrine disruption and low exposure concern (7) .% J1 h$ x' i1 l; m( k
Descriptive data. V. x) ]; f6 N4 Y& s; m- z M( Y9 D
The mean age of newborns ’ fathers was 36 ± 6 years (range
; \5 b# c! z d# e9 A$ i; A( Z4 P3 [20 – 50 years) and that of mothers was 26 ± 5 years (range
7 H+ K6 w. Q; Z% S19 – 42 years). Exposure to EDs started long before preg-
2 k1 h9 h9 B; v9 w# v7 d. I) ynancy and continued throughout pregnancy. Regard-
. I& m0 r6 W# g8 qing therapeutic history during pregnancy, 99 mothers
" K" h0 N- e- i. J% d' v(9.9 % ) received progestins, 14 (1.4 % ) received insulin,
r# v6 \; F( @0 j7 u" `3 F; K4 E6 (0.6 % ) received heparin, 4 (0.04 % ) received long-0 ]0 H) f( L# t+ b! D- s$ y
acting penicillin, 3 (0.3 % ) received aspirin, 2 (0.2 % )/ p# d. ~0 V9 @7 t; v' R$ W( c
received B2 agonist, and 1 (0.1 % ) received thyroxin,7 e9 s- f+ e l
while the rest did not receive any medications during
6 a' K: K/ v1 J0 I2 H; R$ a- upregnancy except for the known multivitamins and
' O4 Z1 X$ [/ g3 R2 b& B* P4 y$ m" Fcalcium supplementations. In addition, family history
# C* T o3 ~- \$ m" h/ hof newborns born small for gestational age was positive. G) a0 j- B& E) B( _) A( M4 e1 d
in 21 cases (2.1 % ).
! j6 A: K+ U8 XExamination5 `+ R- L. [$ I- x
In addition to the full examination by the paediatric staff , each boy# Y# r' a' G7 B9 f! M, E |
was examined for anomalies of the external genitalia during the. o! F4 ~2 L: D3 q4 P, X3 w: g
fi rst 24 h of life by one specially trained researcher. Examination: F3 D; O. \+ A$ t0 b
of the genital system included measurement of stretched penile
$ a: y0 R9 F7 J$ w! e5 ~. U7 glength (8) and examination of external genitalia for congenital, v; j$ U4 n0 l" n; x9 F
anomalies such as cryptorchidism (9) and hypospadias. Hypospa-
# p% `* a/ c2 L) C1 z5 D- |8 A. [7 _& bdias was graded as not glanular, coronal, penile, penoscrotal, scro-2 _' |7 F! O, W$ j. L* w
tal, or perineal according to the anatomical position. Cases of iso-! z. g+ i% T7 R2 x) s! k, q1 f
lated malformed foreskin without hypospadias were not included
9 w7 W4 U; Z9 G/ l$ t- h, x2 ?as cases.
. T e8 U( i/ R- xPenile length* ~, ~/ }8 w9 |+ A p
Laboratory investigations$ S3 r1 Y* ~. }* s
Free testosterone level was measured in 150 randomly chosen neo-
# E q w5 s5 F; e* y' Nnates from the studied sample in the fi rst day of life (enzyme im-9 B4 B4 }& Q/ _% a# K# m
munoassay test supplied by Diagnostics Biochem Canada, Inc.,
: D3 t6 P6 ?, n6 k: x! [ d# w2 eDorchester, Ontario, Canada).0 z) [) [. ` d8 ` C5 f
Mean penile length was 3.41 ± 0.37 cm (range 2.4 – 4.6 cm).
4 g! k% [1 [$ `/ H2 ~6 v& \/ v3 |* \A penile length < 2.5 cm was considered micropenis ( < the
* |6 e5 ^1 Y P2 t1 a/ R5 ?mean by 2.5 SD). Two cases (0.2 % ) were considered to$ ~# a+ ^2 D) j- _. ~8 A
have micropenis. Mean penile length was lower (p = 0.041)
1 F, a8 G6 f/ N O3 d; X! {in neonates exposed to EDs (n = 81, 3.1 cm) compared to the+ k, l, G! L: n+ a/ j) Q, C
non-exposed group (n = 919, 3.4 cm; Figure 1 ).
$ a- l J; A6 D' D3 ?% B1 KThere was a linear relationship between penile length _4 X$ p; M0 ~; x3 H2 b4 |7 b* q' K
and the length of the newborn with a regression coef-
3 W' Z, z1 n& Eficient of 0.05 (95 % CI 0.04 – 0.06; p < 0.0001), i.e., there. b4 a1 @& b9 j9 @; _0 w8 A( l# L
was an increase of 0.05 cm for each unit increase in length
6 ]: u4 I# C. w# T1 X(cm). Similarly, there was a linear relationship between
2 I6 ~7 k0 k& ?penile length and the weight of the newborn with a regres-
: c" ^# u, \# bsion coefficient of 0.14 (95 % CI 0.09 – 0.18; p < 0.0001), i.e.,
3 V% U! ]- d& M. k6 g" Gthere was an increase of 0.14 cm for each unit increase in
! G5 C# r) [2 k6 U Zweight (kg).
/ \3 z7 x: f0 ]6 Q0 H/ L" f2 z/ uBrought to you by | University of California - San Francisco+ E. m) a' \6 o8 U
Authenticated& h% Z+ G) \" m7 j' S9 S, B3 G
Download Date | 2/18/15 4:26 AM$ J1 c; h# ~1 g+ M6 H* H) B
El Kholy et al.: Penile length and male genital anomalies 5113 g, l# O8 C# ]6 ^) Z
3.45
S* v& a) c2 H5 A( T8 t- `3.40
1 ]" ]- r/ {! E% r, o# {3.35- j# d) d1 ]: Z
3.30
6 r; d3 s4 k2 r3.25
' M* T) E' h% P; M/ w0 w3.20
" c8 A" r2 _8 j% Y. I& K: \9 Y" U3.15
- i* x! F) C. @" ^% ?- L+ O Z$ _3.10
4 L0 J N' C. g1 p; A) \$ S3.058 f# q9 c& R2 Y' B% g2 S# O$ O; a
3.00
+ l" q' V6 A% s6 N- U! N0 p& v2.95
8 D3 D9 t0 e/ G+ O/ K* @2.90
6 l$ I; B" I% m0 _; rMean
; c7 i, M) L: G$ q+ spenile
7 Z2 U3 H( N) `* K! jlength
1 j6 [8 c% p# Y6 b6 P$ Ran odds ratio of 6 (95 % CI 2 – 16), i.e., the exposed persons
7 v! e7 O" V2 {9 r6 L6 lwere six times more likely to develop anomalies than8 `7 a$ R4 {0 e6 u6 s* N" s
those not exposed (Table 1 ).
# N3 s7 Z% D' ]0 m1 Y- `( B# oGenital anomalies were detected in the offspring1 f: Q/ d0 M" {$ s! N2 T
of those exposed to chlorinated hydrocarbons (9.52 % ),
" M. c, s; `4 ]' Y4 Sphthalate esters (8.70 % ), and heavy metals (6.25 % ). In
1 k1 t* r4 |7 y' \7 lcontrast, none of the newborns exposed to phenols had5 B3 r. B1 [4 }4 x4 @+ i' o9 \0 @
genital anomalies (Table 2 ).8 u; T7 ~$ V' ^/ x
Exposed# `5 C$ `9 W o( _, o' r* k8 ?
Non exposed1 T8 c4 v" R0 _3 b. c+ ?
Penile lengths according to exposure to endocrine5 s1 p* N% A2 q3 o. o8 e
Figure 1 disruptors.6 a& q- S, B5 j" g/ g1 C, J+ L
Serum free testosterone levels. D' v9 p9 u L( x8 N( m) i
Exposure to cigarette smoke and progestins) _4 q* ?: [ y+ N g* ?
during the first trimester
$ Y( W W$ \- C X. uNone of the mothers in the study was an active smoker;
8 l# ^$ f7 A( Z" A/ j1 H350 were only exposed through passive smoking. There
) S/ X' n7 G7 v8 @5 E1 X7 o- Uwas no difference between rates of anomalies among9 C; }7 M. u3 e- D; o: M+ l
those exposed to cigarette smoke when compared to those T1 m' y' w1 P/ a
not exposed (1.1 % vs. 2.2 % ). Similarly, there was no differ-
8 p7 n; c9 g" X+ E) Cence between the rates of anomalies among those exposed+ V6 [) o3 K1 @) \1 |2 X% ^
to progestins during the first trimester when compared to" L$ E }0 j7 a3 w/ m0 [# D
the non-exposed ones (2 % vs. 1.8 % ).
3 G/ B* h S: m) q! MIn the first day of life, serum free testosterone levels* a% I. Y( x. M6 M) j* {
ranged between 7.2 and 151 pg/mL (mean 61.9 ± 38.4 pg/mL;! a7 _) h5 |% ^* ~$ p4 I
median 60 pg/mL). There was a linear relationship
4 { @9 Z; a7 Q, d1 f$ G; d0 _between penile length and testosterone level of the7 E; ~0 X: }$ Q) i7 k$ x5 L5 [
newborn with a regression coefficient of 0.002 (95 % CI1 P" L& ?2 p7 j Q9 X [
0.0004 – 0.003; p = 0.01), i.e., there was an increase of 0.2 cm
) C5 f! b/ H4 ein penile length per 100 pg/mL increase in testosterone
8 P8 |$ r1 E% ?* R! r# z# F' Vlevel. Moreover, serum testosterone level was significantly
+ b r9 t1 T" u% m: h2 `& O+ Elower in newborns exposed to EDs (49.50 ± 22.3 pg/mL): o6 {& h% C+ x* q
than in the non-exposed group (72.20 ± 31.20 pg/mL; ?( ^9 I$ f) ~' Z. t- A
p < 0.01).- A, ?/ j! Q1 y& t9 @" b( Z8 C
Table 1 Frequency of genital anomalies according to type of
& ^. P3 c5 C" r, Cexposure to endocrine disruptors.
2 c4 e! H. v: |Exposure to endocrine' Z& n1 Z' z% \- h |5 u/ B$ `
disruptors+ R1 E0 f3 P' O8 W! V4 _ Q, p+ w8 q
Prevalence of genital anomalies
2 W/ e/ q. m" R4 k! KAnomalies Total
5 ?8 v& t6 r' \: s6 FNegative Positive+ H" @, \/ m1 r- E
Negative exposure 908 11 919
& C: Y2 N. C* S6 T6 f. L98.8 % 1.2 % 100.0 %2 B' Z. y% J3 I- Q
Positive exposure 75 6 81
5 q; w4 a1 S( z92.6 % 7.4 % 100.0 %1 u" A) Y' a. C8 |, w: S$ J' \
Total 983 17 1000
/ o% d* W9 l! @( e+ Y. M0 c98.3 % 1.7 % 100.0 %
: p7 D6 b; Q" j7 \' J7 ]# W0 Vχ 2 = 25.05, p < 0.0001.3 y- e; C; f0 v% [0 W! ^2 p- z
Over the study period, the birth prevalence of genital \# T; G! Z" l9 l) B5 `
anomalies was 1.8 % , i.e., 18/1000 live birth. Hypospadias) l( m8 l i6 m/ i, c
accounted for 83.33 % of the cases. Fourteen had glanu-
. v$ l4 S7 [2 M4 Nlar hypospadias and one had coronal hypospadias. One* y& Q& t, a: x0 ~! U- r1 S. G- }5 A
had penile torsion and another had penile chordee. Right-7 C' _* w$ w5 ~; U, l
sided cryptorchidism was present in one newborn.. [8 f3 A6 d, a! ?
Exposure to EDCs- S) I1 N( L( g/ A, F
Among the whole sample, 81 newborns (8.10 % ) were, n: Q$ U7 u% U
exposed to EDs. The duration of exposure varied from* j" D! v/ }+ l3 J2 P( ]
2 to 32 years with a frequency of exposure ranging from# R" ]% s/ m$ Q9 `5 S
weekly to 2 – 3 months per year.
5 j$ t- S% B% Y8 ~ P8 `8 P8 T# ]$ MThere was a significantly higher rate of anomalies
1 v: i4 a# W: ]3 J- ^* Bamong those who were exposed to EDs when compared
- ?) H! Z8 z) q* }+ S! ^to non-exposed newborns (7.4 % vs. 1.2 % ; p < 0.0001), with; s# g5 m' [7 E/ v3 m- p6 l- m* z& `
Table 2 Type of endocrine disruptor and percentage of anomalies in
! n' v5 s0 ?% r/ othe group of neonates exposed to endocrine disruptors (n = 81).9 b! c. n! {/ q2 P, I- e
Anomalies Total. G- Q; U. G! }# n; [* \; x% q
Negative Positive
8 ?, X" l# u" t4 _2 ~9 L' y# |Chlorinated hydrocarbons (farmers) 19 2 21
: K* j- r' l* M" [: N& c, ]90.48 % 9.52 % 100.0 %
! o2 x% W! z& ^& y* @Heavy metals (iron smiths, welders) 30 2 32
" c: z9 q) C L0 q93.75 % 6.25 % 100.0 %7 w7 W9 d% W9 L7 h- _
Phthalate esters (house painters) 21 2 23+ q" }" N( |, B8 W/ f2 N) M4 Q. F9 a
91.30 % 8.70 % 100.0 %
Q, W" _7 z0 U' r" l5 y$ _2 ^Phenols (car mechanics) 5 0 57 A9 @* L1 r7 H4 ]3 a Z" ]4 v
100.0 % 0 % 100.0 %
: j' v7 K+ f- q& k' t% [7 C# HTotal 75 6 81
$ e P3 S" y4 C! W92.60 % 7.40 % 100.0 %
$ G7 g9 ^! v; p6 c m4 M' f1 cBrought to you by | University of California - San Francisco* `! k! m4 F, F, W0 o
Authenticated
6 x$ z* ^; D* Q& ?2 X6 Y q/ Y& eDownload Date | 2/18/15 4:26 AM1 B4 A4 G; P9 c' u& k
512 El Kholy et al.: Penile length and male genital anomalies# ^) N. a/ w0 X5 F4 Z
Discussion
) E3 h1 F- Q) B: _. DPreviously reported penile lengths varied from 2.86 to 3.75 cm
/ J; ~( l& E" k. c(11 – 16) and depended on ethnicity. In Saudi Arabia (13) ,( }5 e" e+ A* r! \
mean newborn penile length was 3.55 ± 0.57 cm, slightly; t7 ? c3 J: c& S, n M) e( e, |
higher than our mean value. However, the cut-off lower' P9 C+ u; x. q- e. w$ x( L
limit ( – 2.5 SD) was calculated to be 2.13 cm (vs. 2.5 cm in
4 x$ n- h# p% _) J4 Pour cohort). This emphasizes the importance of establish-
* L2 q! Q) E0 u* ming the normal values for each country because the normal( z4 V+ v- m; F" f" G( g
range could vary markedly. In a multiethnic community,
4 P; Z6 C# ~8 j+ i2 Fa mean length of – 2.5 SD was used for the definition of
5 Q7 o# c% y* q- K0 x; rmicropenis and was 2.6, 2.5, and 2.3 cm for Caucasian,4 }: u f/ k8 P2 Y. o9 P
East-Indian, and Chinese babies, respectively (p < 0.05).
+ y) C0 F" M) d2 k* O1 lThis is close to the widely accepted recommendation that
. M- ^- y6 k9 n* X8 ra penile length of 2.4 – 2.5 cm be considered as the lowest! e2 s6 ~8 _. N6 A! r9 g
limit for the definition of micropenis (8) . The recognition$ A: q8 B2 b% f3 n1 W9 r* w
of micropenis is important, because it might be the only, h; }! r2 P% {3 |, r
obvious manifestation of pituitary or hypothalamic hor-
, C1 l( C! n/ l; @monal deficiencies (17) .
' K" j h q# H/ z* X( IThe timing for measurement of testosterone in new-1 ?+ g. E- D5 L' N( P3 W# f
borns is highly variable but, generally, during the first 2# Z3 v2 C! D2 p# v
weeks of life (18) . In our study, serum testosterone level! v: o+ @* X9 ?# c) s
was measured in all newborns on day 1 in order to fix a
) s: E" X3 s" d3 v4 W2 w2 P: qtime for sample withdrawal in all newborns and, also, to
F& H* [1 |; j, P; Smake sure that all samples were withdrawn before mothers
! E$ ^1 X& O9 S0 N% Pwere discharged from the maternity hospital. We found a
! Z' L, I6 l! J" ^linear relationship between penile length and testosterone: @/ s- Y7 e6 |0 F' r
levels of newborns. Mean penile length was lower in neo-
* R) C* i7 X7 p! B$ `$ A& knates exposed to EDs compared to the non-exposed group,7 W' m% k. P. B2 d& w8 S
which could be related to the lower testosterone levels in4 A8 n% W% ~, `
the exposed group. The etiology of testicular dysgenesis& S7 J4 C3 d& A- w
syndrome (TDS) is suspected to be related to genetic and/or2 [! x3 L2 j. X9 Y
environmental factors, including EDs. Few human studies1 x8 A# _- l8 @6 k- M: [
have found associations/correlations between EDs, includ-4 G5 p- ?7 g8 p" A/ r/ W$ }
ing phthalates, and the different TDS components (18) .
; R$ ^( ]% K4 N2 P, bSome reports have suggested an increase in hypo-. W k4 k( U M2 S( ?: g. p
spadias rates during the period 1960 – 1990 in European
: a* w2 t- N# a# @& @2 ?; q7 Sand US registries (19 – 23) . There are large geographical" k0 a; U% z6 n8 F0 e0 f# b0 m; U
differences in reported hypospadias rates, ranging from
! q3 V( X/ D3 j( u1 ]3 O2.0 to 39.7/10,000 live births (23 – 25) . Several explanations
9 T; f7 B) u# ~% h7 Yhave been proposed for the increasing trends and geo-
# n+ l! d# n: `# o" h* n* g& Tgraphical differences. As male sexual differentiation is, Y7 M+ _% G% g; J
critically dependent on normal androgen concentrations,% ~1 y" A1 ?' i i
increased exposure to environmental factors affecting
9 `/ p8 ]' ?8 h# \& Fandrogen homeostasis during fetal life (e.g., EDs with2 O* b# D2 x0 D( I% H9 b
estrogenic or anti-androgenic properties) may cause
0 z) S0 S( k) l* M: qhypospadias (3, 4) .
- Z' }0 V0 u' r; IIn Western Australia, the average prevalence of hypo-5 Q. ^$ w& j, F! W4 k
spadias in male infants was 67.7 per 10,000 male births.
% V# j/ U) w' |+ K, x9 GWhen applying the EUROCAT definition (24), the average
) I8 M# J/ ~ D, R% kprevalence of hypospadias during 1980 – 2000 was 21.8 per8 Y7 ?2 W/ ~ B" @3 p
10,000 births and the average annual prevalence increased
4 q, K$ a9 F( t/ ~8 Y6 S3 Zsignificantly over the study period by 2.2 % per year. The
' N1 J! D* ]: i3 _# z' ?" hprevalence of hypospadias in this study was much higher
; o; m9 a% N2 s W. Q! I h1 h, P' \$ Gat 150 per 10,000; by excluding glanular hypospadias, the
9 I' x% x) {1 G6 H# W8 Kprevalence fell sharply to 10 per 10,000 (26) .
* M: h9 H, f, i, W5 k! B$ BWe found a higher rate of anomalies among newborns
. Q) s2 s7 p2 D) f9 }! Wexposed to EDs when compared to non-exposed newborns( \( g: m' B: B s
(7.4 % vs. 1.2 % ); this raises the issue that environmental
# V0 E4 O: j3 J8 rpollution might play a role in causing these anomalies.1 s s1 W/ u% P; ` W0 E
Within the last decade, several epidemiologic studies( {4 M N9 }& a
have suggested environmental factors as a possible cause. N( X) h4 x! A4 Y
for the observed increased incidence of abnormalities in
$ b9 l; \- c# z; W4 p3 `3 {' L3 Smale reproductive health (27) . Parental environmental/. |. G( ^+ s& I" R8 d
occupational exposure to EDs before/during pregnancy
/ @$ D" U/ @8 U3 u" R2 c+ mindicates that fetal contamination may be a risk factor for
, {' w9 j& ]$ l) athe development of male external genital malformation
9 Y- I* L! C; w& x0 w5 y4 x! H(27 – 29) .3 v# Y! o: \$ P5 i* r- D
Received October 25, 2012; accepted January 27, 2013; previously
- u" l9 t- n4 ]+ ]1 zpublished online March 18, 20138 v4 C/ E6 p* S* l
References
+ w ]3 M) w* n1. Aaronson IA. Micropenis: medical and surgical implications. J
6 Z0 U# d$ ?6 e! d5 S5 AUrol 1994;152:4 – 14.2 b( G0 Y+ ]( o8 A% U
2. Gabrich PN, Vasconcelos JS, Dami ã o R, Silva EA. Penile anthro-& H0 N: ?2 l3 v& I1 ?; M3 g. ?
pometry in Brazilian children and adolescents. J Pediatr (Rio J)
' n! z+ f7 H) ~8 w2007;83:441 – 6.
; }* p& M8 u" t: q8 G5 B% \3. Sultan C, Balaguer P, Terouanne B, Georget V, Paris F, et al.
# B( j9 c1 v/ n3 U& G$ ~Environmental xenoestrogens, antiandrogens and disorders of
4 H: _4 R7 W0 _5 Zmale sexual differentiation. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001;10:178:
% C, i& y m: x2 O* k' {- T' W) r99 – 105.. E" f& B% J+ s/ g. a& r2 O
4. Sharpe RM, Skakkeb æ k NE. Are oestrogens involved in falling
N* b. O3 G4 g- esperm counts and disorders of the male reproductive tract ?5 M, x: H/ I- [. s5 c
Lancet 1993;341:1392 – 5.5 ^! X7 w8 u: `( j, i; m
5. Acerini CL, Hughes IA. Endocrine disrupting chemicals: a new; D& E6 f7 _9 w9 U9 i2 k7 ?
and emerging public health problem ? Arch Dis Child 2006;91:6 h$ |6 L1 F/ e
633 – 41.
! y' k9 N2 Y, y- K& @6. Joensen UN, J ø rgensen N, Rajpert-De Meyts E, Skakkebaek NE.+ m6 t+ }5 T) i
Testicular dysgenesis syndrome and Leydig cell function. Basic2 e& B! b5 V; e9 M. y9 u" D2 q
Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2008;102:155 – 61.
7 G9 | k$ ^: _5 l6 _7. IEH. Chemicals purported to be endocrine disruptors: a2 m7 t( I/ J) k% J4 [, P7 v6 N6 o
compilation of published lists. (Web Report W20), Leicester,9 D7 i$ v, {& l7 M& l0 E h
UK: MRC Institute for Environmental Health, 2005. Accessed on$ D! o. o w- N2 `
March 2005. Available at http://www.le.ac.uk/ieh/.. n+ y& q3 S0 k3 m
8. Cheng PK, Chanoine JP. Should the definition of micropenis vary7 E' [; X! o, h0 r; x% S
according to ethnicity ? Horm Res 2001;55:278 – 81.
6 D% r m* b: n6 gBrought to you by | University of California - San Francisco
: `* g/ r& M5 C1 a6 CAuthenticated
( M" }* z. O, _8 U5 D: {Download Date | 2/18/15 4:26 AM
) x, u% Y: B5 v! `0 ~El Kholy et al.: Penile length and male genital anomalies 513
0 T0 D/ L5 ?. ^, }/ N) L21. K ä ll é n B, Bertollini R, Castilla E, Czeizel A, Knudsen LB, et al.
7 G; L& X" P' j. ?# k! R# Y% P# A$ ~A joint international study on the epidemiology of hypospadias.& w; j& w& e3 y$ m
Acta Paediatr Scand 1986;324(Suppl):1 – 52.
) y7 U$ G- _. l; g22. Paulozzi LJ, Erickson JD, Jackson RJ. Hypospadias trends in two% X8 ]' S% E! G0 N+ D$ \# [
US surveillance systems. Pediatrics 1997;100:831 – 4.
! E. p! L8 j; y- ]8 |% Gpenile length in newborn and infants. BJU Int 1999;84 : 1093 – 4.: l" w; P3 v/ s1 B T4 O
J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2000;13 : 55 – 62., Q* F/ u( y* _3 p& F: q
Vasudevan G, Manivarmane B, Bhat BV, Bhatia BD, Kumar S.2 E- Q2 k4 Y3 Q6 y$ {' o
Genital standards for south Indian male newborns. Indian J
8 x* F2 Y; m) M! z, R+ h( T' G9. Scorer CG. The incidence of incomplete descent of the testicle at
. K' t: ^! z) X. vbirth. Arch Dis Child 1956;31:198 – 202.
8 `1 b+ V4 | C, b( R2 x10. Daniel WW. Biostatistics: a foundation for analysis in the health
6 t( ]# |- W9 P4 Q0 ^* h" d/ vsciences, 6th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1995.2 w7 @6 H2 I6 H/ Y+ Q1 H ^3 }
11. Flatau E, Josefsberg Z, Reisner SH, Bialik O, Iaron Z. Letter:' S" y9 x* e6 g. d; L( l6 `( m
penile size in the newborn infants. J Pediatr 1975;87:663 – 4.
% W% H, E1 W5 }" k% a9 X, _' y& `1 P! l12. Ozbey H, Temiz A, Salman T. A simple method for measuring
" X4 h- g' g$ P* S( \6 `13. Al-Herbish AS. Standard penile size for normal full term
! N9 g8 l5 @2 [0 t* i9 X% w* g0 Y2 fnewborns in the Saudi population. Saudi Med J 2002;23:314 – 6.* z7 F5 |" b: z
14. Lian WB, Lee WR, Ho LY. Penile length of newborns in Singapore.4 b, `/ {& e4 B
15. Pediatr 1995;62:593 – 6.3 \/ h2 X5 @$ L( t$ a) r8 c
16. Boas M, Boisen KA, Virtanen HE, Kaleva M, Suomi AM, et al.
2 h' `- r2 B1 ?; h5 V5 K' c, Q- rPostnatal penile length and growth rate correlate to serum
4 l% t) ^* ]; s' a, v, o `testosterone levels: a longitudinal study of 1962 normal boys.7 s/ P! z5 k2 ]1 `( p! |/ O
Eur J Endocrinol 2006;154:125 – 9.6 y+ A% N% k% Q7 J
17. Camurdan AD, Oz MO, Ilhan MN, Camurdan OM, Sahin F,
; ^9 \* K& J j0 }$ j& @3 yet al. Current stretched penile length: cross-sectional study
9 l1 ^, M' O* P, A+ z- d- l0 tof 1040 healthy Turkish children aged 0 to 5 years. Urology
; \6 C( }1 c* T& g7 l0 J! B1 X2007;70:572 – 5.( B7 V- E& b" t. C$ w7 W/ |
18. Bay K, Asklund C, Skakkebaek NE, Andersson AM. Testicular( w- r+ W$ o) ^% g* m
dysgenesis syndrome: possible role of endocrine disruptors.. O) Z# w4 }* z, X, D
Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;20:77 – 90.- h* {+ d, L# L+ |
19. Czeizel A. Increasing trends in congenital malformations of male
4 l c7 d* w* lexternal genitalia. Lancet 1985;i:462 – 3.
- i7 L( D K! r, D I% r2 k H* z20. Matlai P, Beral V. Trends in congenital malformations of external# s7 R; i) ?0 e5 w* s
genitalia. Lancet 1985;i:108.
8 |1 N- g! n7 \23. Paulozzi LJ. International trends in rates of hypospadias
" ?. g: r2 n+ e( wand cryptorchidism. Environ Health Perspect 1999;107:) k1 x* P, j! C" o6 Z
297 – 302.
% H5 {/ y/ Z) D( {* f- K24. EUROCAT Working Group. EUROCAT report 7. 15 years of
. ]; x9 C& E: qsurveillance of congenital anomalies in Europe 1980 – 1994.
' {. t0 r0 e7 {; U* F% r4 fBrussels, Belgium: Scientific Institute of Public Health-Louis7 z4 j5 M& F( K
Pasteur, 1997.0 w' Z0 f% y4 O; w+ i
25. Toppari J, Kaleva M, Virtanen HE. Trends in the incidence
6 J- F- H" m0 Iof cryptorchidism and hypospadias, and methodological- c5 m9 k: _; U3 Y
limitations of registry-based data. Hum Reprod Update c m( T0 V5 L$ i2 F$ x
2001;7:282 – 6.
X/ V6 l; ?- d- Y+ Y O) P( y26. Nassar N, Bower C, Barker A. Increasing prevalence of6 o1 E! ?& E$ D# I
hypospadias in Western Australia, 1980 – 2000. Arch Dis Child# {& }1 X5 T8 G. q% N
2007;92:580 – 4.3 Y$ j6 m; W6 j+ Z1 r/ X0 i
27. Wang MH, Baskin LS. Endocrine disruptors, genital
, d5 S" U) H* C! Hdevelopment, and hypospadias. J Androl 2008;29:499 – 505.
) U' e0 M/ p! B- A2 W28. Morales-Su á rez-Varela MM, Toft GV, Jensen MS, Ramlau-Hansen
# O4 {1 w( }* V2 b/ u0 Q4 q. X' AC, Linda Kaerlev L, et al. Parental occupational exposure to
, p- L3 U' L- S- X2 k3 t% Q2 }0 tendocrine disrupting chemicals and male genital malfor-! ~& x! k8 M) C6 `4 v
mations: a study in the Danish National Birth Cohort Study.
5 G: a* l9 r0 [( o* PEnviron Health 2011;10:3.4 X) [, G% K5 Y0 j1 U; V
29. Gaspari L, Sampaio DR, Paris F, Audran F, Orsini M, et al. High' X2 F* y R9 j! u1 x2 L& w+ K
prevalence of micropenis in 2710 male newborns from an
- B# }5 U3 A; Sintensive-use pesticide area of Northeastern Brazil. Int J Androl
1 B7 b2 I$ m1 q6 y2012;35:253 – 64. |
|