Epidemiology of Congenital Hand Differences at a Tertiary Hospital in Southern India – Establishment of a New Registry and Assessment Using Both the Swanson/IFSSH and the Oberg, Manske and Tonkin Classifications

Abstract

Background: In resource challenged nations, the true magnitude of the congenital hand differences (CHD) remain unknown due to a lack of nation-wide surveillance system. We created a hospital-based registry system with the aim to determine the prevalence and distribution of CHD and compare the Swanson/IFSSH (SI) and Oberg, Manske and Tonkin (OMT) classifications. Methods: Data of children aged 0 to 18 years with CHD was entered into the online registry and classified based on the SI and OMT classifications from January 2018 to December 2021. The prevalence and distribution of CHD and risk factors like family history were summarised using descriptive analysis. Syndromic and heredity associations were further analysed using Fischer exact test and odds ratio. Clustered columns were used to compare the two classification systems. Results: A total of 307 patients with CHD presented during the study with a prevalence of 2.4/1,000 patients. Among them, 164 were unilateral, 21 were born of consanguineous marriages (7.6%) and 10 (3.6%) had a family history of CHD. Although not statistically significant, bilateral involvement was twice as likely to be hereditary compared to unilateral involvement. A total of 10 different syndromes were identified among 27 patients of which Holt–Oram syndrome was most common. The most common CHD was Radial longitudinal defificiency (111). A total of 82 (27%) children had other associated anomalies that could not be grouped as a syndrome. Two patients could not be classified using either SI or OMT classifications. Conclusions: The online registry established an efficient way to store and analyse data related to CHD. It provides new information on its prevalence in South India, which is similar to the existing literature. Most of the CHD can be grouped in both the SI and OMT classifications. However, there still remains some conditions that are unclassifiable. There is a need for a national registry of CDH for effective management, funding and research. Level of Evidence: Level IV (Epidemiological)