Search

International audience; Ten years after the consensus meeting on disorders of sex development (DSD), genital surgery continues to raise questions and criticisms concerning its indications, its technical aspects, timing and evaluation. This standpoint details each distinct situation and its possible management in 5 main groups of DSD patients with atypical genitalia: the 46,XX DSD group (congenital adrenal hyperplasia); the heterogeneous 46,XY DSD group (gonadal dysgenesis, disorders of steroidogenesis, target tissues impairments …); gonosomic mosaicisms (45,X/46,XY patients); ovo-testicular DSD; and "non-hormonal/non chromosomal" DSD. Questions are summarized for each DSD group with the support of literature and the feed-back of several world experts. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of presentation there is no consensus regarding the indications, the timing, the procedure nor the evaluation of outcome of DSD surgery. There are, however, some issues on which most experts would agree: 1) The need for identifying centres of expertise with a multidisciplinary approach; 2) A conservative management of the gonads in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome at least until puberty although some studies expressed concerns about the heightened tumour risk in this group; 3) To avoid vaginal dilatation in children after surgical reconstruction; 4) To keep asymptomatic mullerian remnants during childhood; 5) To remove confirmed streak gonads when Y material is present; 6) It is likely that 46,XY cloacal exstrophy, aphallia and severe micropenis would do best raised as male although this is based on limited outcome data. There is general acknowledgement among experts that timing, the choice of the individual and irreversibility of surgical procedures are sources of concerns. There is, however, little evidence provided regarding the impact of non-treated DSD during childhood for the individual development, the parents, society and the risk of stigmatization. The low level of evidence should lead to design collaborative prospective studies involving all parties and using consensual protocols of evaluation.

74 appropriate-for-gestational age (AGA) and 22 small-for-gestational age (SGA) caucasian infants were studied for anthropometric parameters: mid arm circumference (MAC), triceps and subscapular skinfold thickness (TSKF and SSKF) recorded at 15 and 60 s, chest circumference (cc), head circumference, birth weight and length. MAC is highly correlated with birth weight either in AGA (r = 0.936; P less than 0.001) or in SGA infants (r = 0.860; P less than 0.001). MAC is also correlated with gestational age in AGA (r = 0.850; P less than 0.001) and SGA infants (r = 0.76; P less than 0.001). Similar correlations were found between TSKF, SSKF and birth weight or gestational age. Arm muscle and fat areas are also positively correlated with birth weight and gestational age, in AGA and SGA infants. A multiple regression analysis of our data allowed a classification of the best discriminant anthropometric parameters between AGA and SGA infants. MAC, SSKF15, SSKF60 and chest circumference were selected. An equation was established in AGA infants with these four parameters giving a predictive gestational age: gestational age (weeks) = 1.216 MAC (cm)-3.588 SSKF15 (mm) + 0.263 CC (cm) + 17.9. The ratio of predicted gestational age to the real gestational age was 1.0 +/- 0.044 in AGA versus 0.896 +/- 0.034 in SGA infants. Our data suggest that MAC and SSKF provide a simple measure of body composition of neonates and a useful tool for determining the degree of maturity of a newborn independent of birth weight.

Twenty appropriate (mean +/- S.D., gestational age (AGA): 29.9 +/- 1.5 weeks) and 15 small (GA: 34.6 +/- 2.4 weeks) for gestational age (SGA) very low birth weight infants fed banked mature human milk were studied until term for anthropometric parameters: midarm (MAC), chest (CC), head (HC) circumferences, triceps (TSKF) and subscapular (SSKF) skinfold thickness recorded at 15 and 60 s, dynamic skinfold (delta % SKF), muscle (AMA) and fat (AFA) areas, weight and length. In AGA infants, all the parameters at term were significantly lower in extrauterine (EUL) that in intrauterine life (IUL). At term the relative proportion of AFA to total arm area was increased in EUL compared to IUL both in AGA (25.87 +/- 3.8 vs. 23.26 +/- 1.27% respectively, P less than 0.01) and in SGA infants (21.89 +/- 4.63 vs. 18.81 +/- 3.9 respectively, P less than 0.05). SGA infants showed a similar growth in EUL compared to IUL, and a significantly lower AMA and AFA than in AGA infants in EUL. Although HC was in both infants below the 10th centile at term, the ratio weight/HC2 suggests a relative preservation of head growth in EUL compared to IUL (AGA: 20.72 less than 0.87 vs. 22.65 +/- 1.46 respectively, P less than 0.001; SGA; 20.82 +/- 1.16 vs. 21.62 +/- 1.86 respectively, NS). Delta %SKF were negatively correlated with post-conceptional age suggesting a loss of extracellular water in AGA (delta %TSKF: r = -0.287, P less than 0.02) and in SGA infants (delta %TSKF: r = -0.301, P less than 0.02; delta %SSKF: r = -0.316, P less than 0.02). An intrauterine model of discrimination between AGA and SGA infants does not apply to EUL. An equation was established in SGA infants with the best discriminant parameters giving a predictive post-conceptional age: post-conceptual age (PCA) (weeks) = 0.276 HC (cm) + 0.723 CC (cm) - 0.122 MAC (cm) + 0.5 TSKF (mm) + 10.173, (r = 0.867, P less than 0.001) allowing a clear discrimination between AGA and SGA infants. These results suggest that infants show quite different growth patterns between IUL and EUL both for AGA and SGA infants.