| Literature DB >> 19036153 |
Farzad Omidi-Kashani1, Ebrahim G Hasankhani, Reza Sharifi, Mahdi Mazlumi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Congenital muscular torticollis is the third most common congenital musculoskeletal anomaly after dislocation of the hip and clubfoot. When diagnosed early, it is obvious that it can be managed with good or excellent results. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the efficacy of surgery in neglected adult cases.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19036153 PMCID: PMC2611989 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Differential diagnoses of torticollis
| Muscular |
| Vertebral anomalies; failure of formation, segmentation or both |
| Ocular |
| Tumoral; eosinophilic granuloma, osteoma/osteoblatoma |
| Traumatic; C1 fracture |
| Inflammatory; Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, respiratory tract infection, cervical adenitis |
| Hysterical |
| Paroxysmal torticollis of infancy |
| Associated with ligamentous laxity; Down syndrome |
Figure 1Neglected congenital muscular torticollis. A 25 years old man (Case 3) presented with neglected left congenital muscular torticollis.
Figure 2Torticollis brace. A form of the torticollis brace we routinely used.
Figure 3The patient in postoperative period. The same patient shown on figure 1, during first 3 months after surgery.
Modified Lee's scoring system for the assessment of neglected muscular torticollis in adult patients
| Full | None | Fine | None | None | |
| Limitation of rotation or side-flexion <10° | Mild | Slight | Slight | Slight | |
| Limitation of rotation or side-flexion 10°–25° | Moderate | Moderate | Obvious but cosmetically acceptable | Obvious but cosmetically acceptable | |
| Limitation of rotation or side-flexion >25° | Severe | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | |
Summary of our patients' characteristics
| Patient | Age (y) | Sex | side affected | Follow-up (y) | (Preop, postop) scoliosis | Postop points | result |
| 1 | 18 | F | Right | 1.8 | (16, 10) | 13 | Good |
| 2 | 21 | M | Right | 1 | (10, NSX) | 15 | Excellent |
| 3 | 25 | M | Left | 1.6 | (NS) | 13 | Good |
| 4 | 21 | M | Right | 3.2 | (10, NS) | 14 | Excellent |
| 5 | 32 | M | Left | 2.3 | (25, 12) | 13 | Good |
| 6 | 26 | M | Left | 4.3 | (30, 16) | 8 | Poor |
| 7 | 27 | M | Left | 1.4 | (NS) | 15 | Excellent |
| 8 | 19 | F | Left | 3.6 | (20, 10) | 13 | Good |
| 9 | 18 | F | Right | 1.4 | (14, NS) | 15 | Excellent |
| 10 | 27 | M | Right | 5 | (20, 12) | 14 | Excellent |
| 11 | 19 | M | Left | 1.4 | (NS) | 14 | Excellent |
| 12 | 18 | F | Left | 1.8 | (NS) | 15 | Excellent |
| 13 | 25 | M | Left | 3.6 | (26, 18) | 9 | Poor |
| 14 | 20 | M | Right | 2.1 | (18, 10) | 13 | Good |
X NS: Not Significant
Figure 4Final photography of the patient. The same patient shown on figure 1, 1.6 years after surgery.