BACKGROUND: Animal models of endocrine dysfunction have associated male genital defects with reduced anogenital distance (AGD). Human studies have correlated shorter AGD with exposure to putative endocrine disruptors in the environment but have not examined AGD in hypospadiac boys. We measured AGD in boys with hypospadias and those with normal genitals. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on boys undergoing urologic procedures at the University of California San Francisco and the Children's Hospital of Oakland, CA, USA. Data included age, race, height, weight, BMI, urologic diagnoses and AGD. To minimize any potential effects of race on observed AGD, we examined only Caucasian boys. Differences between boys with hypospadias and those with normal genitals were examined through two-tailed Student's t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen Caucasian boys ranging in age from 4 to 86 months underwent AGD measurement, of which 42 and 77 were boys with normal genitals and hypospadias, respectively. The mean (±SD) AGD of boys with hypospadias was 67 ± 1.2 versus 73 ± 1 mm for boys with normal genitals (P = 0.002). In these age-unmatched patient groups, there were also differences in age, height and weight (P = 0.0001, 0.0002 and 0.0004, respectively). After age matching (all <2 years of age), boys with hypospadias (n= 26) still featured a shorter AGD than boys with normal genitals (n= 26; 62 ± 2 versus 68 ± 2 mm respectively, P = 0.033) but the differences in age, height and weight were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: In humans, hypospadias may indeed be associated with reduced AGD. Additional studies are needed to corroborate these preliminary findings and to determine their etiology.
BACKGROUND: Animal models of endocrine dysfunction have associated male genital defects with reduced anogenital distance (AGD). Human studies have correlated shorter AGD with exposure to putative endocrine disruptors in the environment but have not examined AGD in hypospadiac boys. We measured AGD in boys with hypospadias and those with normal genitals. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on boys undergoing urologic procedures at the University of California San Francisco and the Children's Hospital of Oakland, CA, USA. Data included age, race, height, weight, BMI, urologic diagnoses and AGD. To minimize any potential effects of race on observed AGD, we examined only Caucasian boys. Differences between boys with hypospadias and those with normal genitals were examined through two-tailed Student's t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen Caucasian boys ranging in age from 4 to 86 months underwent AGD measurement, of which 42 and 77 were boys with normal genitals and hypospadias, respectively. The mean (±SD) AGD of boys with hypospadias was 67 ± 1.2 versus 73 ± 1 mm for boys with normal genitals (P = 0.002). In these age-unmatched patient groups, there were also differences in age, height and weight (P = 0.0001, 0.0002 and 0.0004, respectively). After age matching (all <2 years of age), boys with hypospadias (n= 26) still featured a shorter AGD than boys with normal genitals (n= 26; 62 ± 2 versus 68 ± 2 mm respectively, P = 0.033) but the differences in age, height and weight were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: In humans, hypospadias may indeed be associated with reduced AGD. Additional studies are needed to corroborate these preliminary findings and to determine their etiology.
Authors: Matthew P Longnecker; Beth C Gladen; Lea A Cupul-Uicab; S Patricia Romano-Riquer; Jean-Phillipe Weber; Robert E Chapin; Mauricio Hernández-Avila Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Robert J Kuczmarski; Cynthia L Ogden; Shumei S Guo; Laurence M Grummer-Strawn; Katherine M Flegal; Zuguo Mei; Rong Wei; Lester R Curtin; Alex F Roche; Clifford L Johnson Journal: Vital Health Stat 11 Date: 2002-05
Authors: Luisa Torres-Sanchez; Monica Zepeda; Mariano E Cebrián; Jaime Belkind-Gerson; Rosa M Garcia-Hernandez; Uri Belkind-Valdovinos; Lizbeth López-Carrillo Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Michael L Eisenberg; Michael H Hsieh; Rustin Chanc Walters; Ross Krasnow; Larry I Lipshultz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jaime Mendiola; Richard W Stahlhut; Niels Jørgensen; Fan Liu; Shanna H Swan Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Ajay Thankamony; Ken K Ong; David B Dunger; Carlo L Acerini; Ieuan A Hughes Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-07-13 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Laura N Vandenberg; Theo Colborn; Tyrone B Hayes; Jerrold J Heindel; David R Jacobs; Duk-Hee Lee; John Peterson Myers; Toshi Shioda; Ana M Soto; Frederick S vom Saal; Wade V Welshons; R Thomas Zoeller Journal: Reprod Toxicol Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 3.143
Authors: David C Dorman; Weihsueh Chiu; Barbara F Hales; Russ Hauser; Kamin J Johnson; Ellen Mantus; Susan Martel; Karen A Robinson; Andrew A Rooney; Ruthann Rudel; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Susan L Schantz; Katrina M Waters Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 6.393
Authors: Michael L Eisenberg; Tung-Chin Hsieh; Alexander W Pastuszak; Matthew G McIntyre; Rustin C Walters; Dolores J Lamb; Larry I Lipshultz Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Lærke Priskorn; Jørgen H Petersen; Niels Jørgensen; Henriette B Kyhl; Marianne S Andersen; Katharina M Main; Anna-Maria Andersson; Niels E Skakkebaek; Tina K Jensen Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.756