Development of brain and spinal cord in anencephalic human fetuses

Abstract

Objectives: Anencephaly is the severest form of neural tube defects. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the development of brain and spinal cord in anencephalic human fetuses (specimens).

Methods: 43 specimens with anencephaly were collected after obtaining written consent from parents and clearance from ethics committee of the institute as per declaration of Helsinki guidelines. All the specimens were fixed in buffered formalin. Gross examination and histological studies of the brain and spinal cord were performed in each specimen.

Results: Gestational age of fetuses varied from 18 to 40 weeks, the majority being female fetuses. 31 (72%) fetuses had only anencephaly while 9 (21%) fetuses had additional spina bifida and 3 (7%) had meningomyelocele. The brain was observed as a dark brown undifferentiated mass with complete absence of the cerebellum, pons, medulla and midbrain. In 31 fetuses (72%), the spinal cord continued rostrally into an open neural tube that connected to the undifferentiated brown mass while in 12 fetuses (28%), it merged directly into the undifferentiated brown mass. Spinal cord was normal in appearance in all fetuses with anencephaly. Spinal cord was deformed in 3 fetuses (7%) having meningomyelocele. Histological examination of brain showed venous vessels of varying caliber interspersed with connective tissue, similar to an angioma along with islets of nervous tissue which mainly comprised of scattered nerve cells, astroglial cells and cavities lined by ependyma.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that there is no functional organization of brain in anencephalic fetuses, and the survival of such fetuses is not possible. The spinal cord is normal in fetuses with anencephaly only while it is deformed in anencephalic fetuses with meningomyelocele.

Keywords

• anencephaly
• brain development
• spina bifida
• spinal cord development
• meningomyelocele

References

1. Park K. Park’s textbook of preventive and social medicine. 17th ed.
2. Jabalpur: Banarsidas Bhanot; 2002. p. 389–98.
3. Kumar MR, Bhat BV, Oumachigui A. Perinatal mortality trends in
4. a referral hospital. Indian J Pediatr 1996;63:357–61.
5. Chaudhary A, Talukder G, Sharma A. Neonatal congenital malformations
6. in Calcutta. Indian Pediatr 1984; 21:399–405.
7. Kalra A, Kalra K, Sharma V, Singh M, Dayal RS. Congenital malformations
8. Indian Pediatr 1984;21:945–950.

9. Kulkarni ML, Kurian M. Consanguinity and its effect on fetal
10. growth and development a south Indian study. J Med Genet 1990;
11. :348–52.
12. Mishra PC, Baveja R. Congenital malformations in newborn – a
13. prospective study. Indian Pediatr 1989;26:32–5.
14. Swain S, Agrawal A, Bhatia BD. Congenital malformations at
15. birth. Indian Pediatr 1994;31:1187–91.
16. Verma IC, Jacob TT. Clinical and genetic aspects of malformations
17. of central nervous system. Journal of All Indian Institute of
18. Medical Sciences 1976;1:164–74.
19. Verma M, Chhatwal J, Singh D. Congenital malformations - a retrospective
20. study of 10,000 cases. Indian J Pediatr 1991;58:245–52.
21. Goravalingappa JP, Nashi HK. Congenital malformations in a
22. study of 2398 consecutive births. Indian J Med Res 1979;69:140–6.
23. Chaturvedi P, Banerjee KS. Spectrum of congenital malformations
24. in the newborns from rural Maharashtra. Indian J Pediatr 1989;56:
25. –7.
26. Coffey VP, Jessop WJ. A study of 137 cases of anencephaly. Br J
27. Prev Soc Med 1957;11:174–80.
28. Vare AM, Bansal PC. Anencephaly. An anatomical study of 41
29. anencephalics. Indian J Pediatr 1971;38:301–5.
30. Andersen SR, Bro-Rasmussen F, Tygstrup I. Anencephaly related
31. to ocular development and malformation. Am J Ophthalmol 1967;
32. :S559–66.
33. Ashwal S, Peabody JL, Schneider S, Tomasi LG, Emery JR,
34. Peckham N. Anencephaly: clinical determination of brain death
35. and neuropathologic studies. Pediatr Neurol 1990;6:233–9.
36. Berry RJ, Li Z, Erickson JD, Li S, Moore CA, Wang H, Mulinare
37. J, Zhao P, Wong LY, Gindler J, Hong SX, Correa A. Prevention
38. of neural-tube defects with folic acid in China. China-US collaborative
39. project for neural tube defect prevention, N Engl J Med
40. ;341:1485–90.
41. Byrne P. Use of anencephalic newborns as organ donors. Paediatr
42. Child Health 2005;10:335–7.
43. Bancroft JD, Harry CC. Manual of histological techniques.
44. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1984. p. 18–21.
45. Carleton HM, Drury RAB. Histological technique for normal and
46. pathological tissues and the identification of parasites. London:
47. Oxford University Press; 1962. p. 32-76, 229–31.
48. Culling CFA, Allison RT, Barr WT. Cellular pathology technique.
49. th ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1985. p. 36-37, 160–161,
50. , 387–8.
51. Moore KL, Persaud TVN, Torchia MG. The developing human:
52. clinically oriented embryology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012.
53. p. 95-101, 404–14.
54. Sadler TW. Langman’s medical embryology. 10th ed.
55. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 89–93.
56. Durgesh V, Vijaya Lakshmi K, Ramana Rao R. Incidence of
57. myelomeningocele with anencephaly in Vizianagaram district of
58. north coastal Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Basic and
59. Applied Medical Sciences 2013;3:259–62.
60. Khattak ST, Khan M, Naheed T, Khattak IU, Ismail M.
61. Prevalence and management of anencephaly at Saidu Teaching
62. Hospital, Swat. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2010;22:61–3.
63. Menasinki SB. A study of neural tube defects. J Anat Soc India
64. ;59:162–7.
65. Laurence KM, Carter CO, David PA. Major central nervous system
66. malformations in South Wales. II. Pregnancy factors, seasonal
67. variation, and social class effects. Br J Prev Soc Med 1968,22:
68. –22.
69. Larsen WJ. Human embryology. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill
70. Livingstone; 1997. p. 73–95.
71. Panduranga C, Kangle R, Suranagi VV, Ganga SP, Prakash VP.
72. Anencephaly: a pathological study of 41 cases. Journal of the
73. Scientific Society 2012;39:81–4.