ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Prenatal genetic diagnostics and postnatal outcomes of fetal auricular dysplasia.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAuricular dysplasia is a common fetal anomaly. Despite existing studies in postnatal populations, there remains a paucity of prenatal data on genetic etiology and prognostic analysis for this condition. This study aimed to analyze the genetic etiology and associated postnatal outcomes of auricular dysplasia, in order to provide guidance for prenatal genetic counseling.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 105 singleton and 5 twin pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed auricular dysplasia between May 2019 and June 2024. Genetic investigations included chromosomal microarray (CMA), copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq), and whole-exome sequencing (WES) to elucidate potential genetic etiologies. Longitudinal postnatal follow-up was systematically conducted to assess auricular morphology, auditory function, and associated systemic anomalies, providing comprehensive prognostic insights.
resultsFetal auricular dysplasia predominantly manifests as unilateral involvement (with right-sided predominance), while bilateral cases are more frequently associated with concurrent multisystem developmental anomalies. Genetic analyses revealed trisomy 21 and CNVs of uncertain clinical significance, including 4q22.1 microdeletion, 3p12.2 microduplication, etc. In bilateral cases with multisystem anomalies, variants in SLC25A24, EFTUD2, and ABCA12 were identified. Postnatally, no pathogenic/likely pathogenic chromosomal or genetic variants were detected in isolated auricular dysplasia cases. However, in cases with concurrent systemic anomalies, compound heterozygous variants were identified in HSPA9 and ADGRV1. Follow-up data showed that 4 (12.90%) of prenatally diagnosed neonates exhibited no auricular malformations postnatally, and 12 (38.71%) had normal hearing, with auditory impairment mostly confined to the affected ear in unilateral cases.
conclusionIsolated auricular dysplasia is generally not associated with genetic abnormalities. However, bilateral auricular dysplasia with concurrent multisystem developmental anomalies demonstrates a correlation with pathogenic gene variants. Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of auricular dysplasia carries a potential for misdiagnosis, but isolated cases typically manifest postnatally with auricular malformations and ipsilateral hearing impairment. In contrast, bilateral auricular dysplasia accompanied by multisystem anomalies may serve as a prognostic indicator of adverse fetal outcomes, necessitating comprehensive genetic and systemic evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.