PURPOSE: To describe a type of nonhereditary unilateral transverse deficiency, which we have named hypodactyly, that is distinct from symbrachydactyly or amniotic disruption sequence. METHODS: We identified 19 patients with unilateral congenital anomalies consisting of absent or short bulbous fingers that lack terminal ectodermal elements. Medical records and radiographs were retrospectively reviewed and contrasted with the typical findings of symbrachydactyly and amniotic disruption sequence. RESULTS: No associated syndromes or potentially causative diagnoses were identified in the hypodactyly patients. The digital absences were of a truncated pattern with thickened, tubular soft tissue coverage. Radiographs revealed a pattern of severity progression that is different from that of symbrachydactyly. Distal phalanges were the bony elements absent most frequently, followed sequentially by the middle phalanx and proximal phalanx. In all cases, metacarpals were present. Unlike symbrachydactyly, the ulnar 2 digits were more involved than the index and long fingers, and the thumb was the least involved digit. CONCLUSIONS: Hypodactyly appears to be a congenital hand anomaly that is clinically and radiographically different from symbrachydactyly or amniotic disruption sequence and is presumed to be caused by a distinct pathomechanism. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.
PURPOSE: To describe a type of nonhereditary unilateral transverse deficiency, which we have named hypodactyly, that is distinct from symbrachydactyly or amniotic disruption sequence. METHODS: We identified 19 patients with unilateral congenital anomalies consisting of absent or short bulbous fingers that lack terminal ectodermal elements. Medical records and radiographs were retrospectively reviewed and contrasted with the typical findings of symbrachydactyly and amniotic disruption sequence. RESULTS: No associated syndromes or potentially causative diagnoses were identified in the hypodactyly patients. The digital absences were of a truncated pattern with thickened, tubular soft tissue coverage. Radiographs revealed a pattern of severity progression that is different from that of symbrachydactyly. Distal phalanges were the bony elements absent most frequently, followed sequentially by the middle phalanx and proximal phalanx. In all cases, metacarpals were present. Unlike symbrachydactyly, the ulnar 2 digits were more involved than the index and long fingers, and the thumb was the least involved digit. CONCLUSIONS: Hypodactyly appears to be a congenital hand anomaly that is clinically and radiographically different from symbrachydactyly or amniotic disruption sequence and is presumed to be caused by a distinct pathomechanism. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.