Literature DB >> 15060342

Progressive postnatal craniosynostosis and increased intracranial pressure.

John P Connolly1, Joseph Gruss, Marianne L Seto, Michael F Whelan, Richard Ellenbogen, Avery Weiss, Steven R Buchman, Michael L Cunningham.   

Abstract

Since its first description by Virchow in 1851, craniosynostosis has been known as a potentially serious condition resulting in premature fusion of skull sutures. Traditionally, craniosynostosis has been regarded as an event that occurs early in fetal development, resulting in a skull shape at birth that is determined by the suture or sutures involved. In recent years, a different form of craniosynostosis has been observed. Patients initially come to the attention of physicians because they exhibit midface hypoplasia or occasionally hypertelorism. The affected individuals all have a normal skull shape and open sutures in infancy but develop multiple-suture craniosynostosis postnatally, ultimately requiring surgical correction. These cases are significant because, although the patients do not initially display the physical manifestations of craniosynostosis, they frequently develop increased intracranial pressure, which can have devastating consequences. Unless these patients are recognized and vigilant follow-up monitoring is instituted at an early age, permanent impairment can result. A retrospective chart review study was conducted, and patients with multiple-suture craniosynostosis who developed symptoms of increased intracranial pressure were selected. The patients were divided into two groups, namely, those with normal sutures and/or head shape at birth (progressive craniosynostosis) (n = 15) and those with abnormal head shapes at birth (classic syndromic craniosynostosis) (n = 12). Clinical and radiological findings typically used to monitor the development of increased intracranial pressure were reviewed for both groups and compared. In addition, mutational analyses were performed. All patients with progressive postnatal craniosynostosis demonstrated clinical, radiological, or ophthalmological evidence of increased intracranial pressure, requiring skull expansion. Those patients displayed papilledema, anterior fontanelle bulge, and thumbprinting more often than did the patients with classic craniosynostosis. Thirteen of 15 patients were given the clinical diagnosis of Crouzon syndrome, which raises the question of whether such patients represent a subset of patients with this syndrome. Mutational analyses for the patients with progressive craniosynostosis demonstrated that, of 13 patients tested, 11 had mutations in exon 7 or 9 of FGFR2, which is a common site of mutations in Crouzon syndrome. The traditional indications of increased intracranial pressure used to monitor patients with classic craniosynostosis can be used to monitor patients with progressive postnatal craniosynostosis, particularly anterior fontanelle bulge, papilledema, and thumbprinting. It is thought that regular monitoring of these characteristics may lead to earlier diagnosis and allow for surgical intervention before the development of undesirable outcomes. It is important for clinicians to be aware of this group of patients, because any delay in diagnosis and treatment can result in severe consequences for the patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15060342     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000111593.96440.30

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  23 in total

1.  Guideline for Care of Patients With the Diagnoses of Craniosynostosis: Working Group on Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Irene M J Mathijssen
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.046

2.  Craniofacial reconstruction as a treatment for elevated intracranial pressure.

Authors:  Lissa C Baird; David Gonda; Steven R Cohen; Lars H Evers; Nathalie LeFloch; Michael L Levy; Hal S Meltzer
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 1.475

3.  Craniosynostosis.

Authors:  David Johnson; Andrew O M Wilkie
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Crouzon syndrome: Genetic and intervention review.

Authors:  N M Al-Namnam; F Hariri; M K Thong; Z A Rahman
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2018-08-29

Review 5.  Skull vault growth in craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Spyros Sgouros
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2005-03-25       Impact factor: 1.475

6.  A model for the pharmacological treatment of crouzon syndrome.

Authors:  Chad A Perlyn; Gillian Morriss-Kay; Tron Darvann; Marissa Tenenbaum; David M Ornitz
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 7.  Craniosynostosis as a clinical and diagnostic problem: molecular pathology and genetic counseling.

Authors:  Anna Kutkowska-Kaźmierczak; Monika Gos; Ewa Obersztyn
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Apert syndrome without craniosynostosis.

Authors:  Diego de Ângelis Ramos; Hamilton Matushita; Daniel Dante Cardeal; Clarissa Nóbrega Gambarra Nascimento; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 1.475

9.  Germline and somatic mosaicism for FGFR2 mutation in the mother of a child with Crouzon syndrome: Implications for genetic testing in "paternal age-effect" syndromes.

Authors:  Anne Goriely; Helen Lord; Jasmine Lim; David Johnson; Tracy Lester; Helen V Firth; Andrew O M Wilkie
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Quantification of facial skeletal shape variation in fibroblast growth factor receptor-related craniosynostosis syndromes.

Authors:  Yann Heuzé; Neus Martínez-Abadías; Jennifer M Stella; Eric Arnaud; Corinne Collet; Gemma García Fructuoso; Mariana Alamar; Lun-Jou Lo; Simeon A Boyadjiev; Federico Di Rocco; Joan T Richtsmeier
Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol       Date:  2014-02-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.