OBJECT: Although Chiari Type I (CM-I) and Type 0 (CM-0) malformations have been previously characterized clinically and radiologically, there have been no studies focusing on the possible genetic link between these disorders. The goal of this study was to identify families in whom CM-0 and CM-I co-occurred and to further assess the similarities between these disorders. METHODS: Families were ascertained through a proband with CM-I. Detailed family histories were obtained to identify first-degree relatives diagnosed with CM-0. Several criteria were used to exclude individuals with acquired forms of CM-I and/or syringomyelia. Individuals were excluded with syndromic, traumatic, infectious, or tumor-related syringomyelia, as well as CM-I due to a supratentorial mass, hydrocephalus, history of cervical or cranial surgery unrelated to CM-I, or development of symptoms following placement of a lumbar shunt. Medical records and MR images were used to characterize CM-I and CM-0 individuals clinically and radiologically. RESULTS: Five families were identified in which the CM-I proband had a first-degree relative with CM-0. Further assessment of affected individuals showed similar clinical and radiological features between CM-0 and CM-I individuals, although CM-I patients in general had more severe symptoms and skull base abnormalities than their CM-0 relatives. Overall, both groups showed improvement in symptoms and/or syrinx size following craniocervical decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There is accumulating evidence suggesting that CM-0 and CM-I may be caused by a common underlying developmental mechanism. The data in this study are consistent with this hypothesis, showing similar clinical and radiological features between CM-0 and CM-I individuals, as well as the occurrence of both disorders within families. Familial clustering of CM-0 and CM-I suggests that these disorders may share an underlying genetic basis, although additional epigenetic and/or environmental factors are likely to play an important role in the development of CM-0 versus CM-I.
OBJECT: Although Chiari Type I (CM-I) and Type 0 (CM-0) malformations have been previously characterized clinically and radiologically, there have been no studies focusing on the possible genetic link between these disorders. The goal of this study was to identify families in whom CM-0 and CM-I co-occurred and to further assess the similarities between these disorders. METHODS: Families were ascertained through a proband with CM-I. Detailed family histories were obtained to identify first-degree relatives diagnosed with CM-0. Several criteria were used to exclude individuals with acquired forms of CM-I and/or syringomyelia. Individuals were excluded with syndromic, traumatic, infectious, or tumor-related syringomyelia, as well as CM-I due to a supratentorial mass, hydrocephalus, history of cervical or cranial surgery unrelated to CM-I, or development of symptoms following placement of a lumbar shunt. Medical records and MR images were used to characterize CM-I and CM-0 individuals clinically and radiologically. RESULTS: Five families were identified in which the CM-I proband had a first-degree relative with CM-0. Further assessment of affected individuals showed similar clinical and radiological features between CM-0 and CM-I individuals, although CM-I patients in general had more severe symptoms and skull base abnormalities than their CM-0 relatives. Overall, both groups showed improvement in symptoms and/or syrinx size following craniocervical decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There is accumulating evidence suggesting that CM-0 and CM-I may be caused by a common underlying developmental mechanism. The data in this study are consistent with this hypothesis, showing similar clinical and radiological features between CM-0 and CM-I individuals, as well as the occurrence of both disorders within families. Familial clustering of CM-0 and CM-I suggests that these disorders may share an underlying genetic basis, although additional epigenetic and/or environmental factors are likely to play an important role in the development of CM-0 versus CM-I.
Authors: Joshua J Chern; Amber J Gordon; Martin M Mortazavi; R Shane Tubbs; W Jerry Oakes Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Raymond F Sekula; Peter J Jannetta; Kenneth F Casey; Edward M Marchan; L Kathleen Sekula; Christine S McCrady Journal: Cerebrospinal Fluid Res Date: 2005-12-18
Authors: Sharon Y Y Low; Derrick W Q Lian; Phua Hwee Tang; Eva Loh; Wan Tew Seow; David C Y Low Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Christina A Markunas; David S Enterline; Kaitlyn Dunlap; Karen Soldano; Heidi Cope; Jeffrey Stajich; Gerald Grant; Herbert Fuchs; Simon G Gregory; Allison E Ashley-Koch Journal: Ann Hum Genet Date: 2013-10-06 Impact factor: 1.670
Authors: Enver I Bogdanov; Aisylu T Faizutdinova; Elena G Mendelevich; Alexey S Sozinov; John D Heiss Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Christina A Markunas; Karen Soldano; Kaitlyn Dunlap; Heidi Cope; Edgar Asiimwe; Jeffrey Stajich; David Enterline; Gerald Grant; Herbert Fuchs; Simon G Gregory; Allison E Ashley-Koch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240