THE EFFECT OF GENITAL MYCOPLASMAS ON HUMAN FETAL GROWTH
Article first published online: 23 AUG 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1981.tb01278.x
Issue
1471-0528/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=b4e1d96c46e18c61210d584b63c13ee375cf562b)
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 88, Issue 7, pages 749–755, July 1981
Additional Information
How to Cite
Ross, J. M., Furr, P. M., Taylor-Robinson, D., Altman, D. G. and Coid, C. R. (1981), THE EFFECT OF GENITAL MYCOPLASMAS ON HUMAN FETAL GROWTH. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 88: 749–755. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1981.tb01278.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 23 AUG 2005
- Article first published online: 23 AUG 2005
- Received November 4, 1980/Accepted January 16, 1981.
- Abstract
- References
- Cited By
Summary
The relation between maternal genital colonization by mycoplasmas and fetal growth was examined in a study of 195 women. Swabs were taken from the endo-cervix on three occasions during pregnancy and once post partum. Ureaplasma urealyticum organisms (ureaplasmas) were recovered from 42·7 per cent of Caucasian women and from 34·6 per cent of Asian women at their first antenatal visit. These Isolation rates remained similar throughout pregnancy, although there was a decrease in isolation after delivery. Mycoplasma hominis was recovered from 6·5 per cent of Caucasians and from 11·5 per cent of Asians at their first antenatal visit and these rates remained fairly constant during pregnancy and after delivery. Caucasian women colonized by ureaplasmas had a longer mean length of gestation (p < 0·025) than non-colonized women. Furthermore, the colonized women gave birth to infants who had a statistically significant greater mean birth weight and a greater mean birth weight-for-dates than those of the non-colonized Caucasians. There was no correlation between gestational length, birth weight, or birth weight-for-dates and genital colonization of Asian mothers by ureaplasmas or M. hominis. It is clear that ureaplasmas are not associated with low birth weight in our popu-lation.

1471-0528/asset/BJO_left.gif?v=1&s=0fb87361cdb6be25fdf05019eed6d47f5143f610)
1471-0528/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=3892ef16ff18d6834c302faf85268a49f5fc588f)