Skeletal radiology · 2019
Clinical and radiological findings in Brazilian patients with mucolipidosis types II/III.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ceroni José Ricardo Magliocco, Spolador Gustavo Marquezani, Bermeo Diana Salazar, Honjo Rachel Sayuri, de Oliveira Luiz Antonio Nunes, Bertola Débora Romeo, Kim Chong Ae
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to provide orientation for clinicians and radiologists to recognize the most prevalent findings leading to diagnosis in mucolipidosis from a description of the natural history of five Brazilian cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational and retrospective study of five patients with clinical and radiological diagnosis of mucolipidosis. Clinical evaluation consisted of information obtained from records and including physical, neurologic, and dysmorphic evaluations. Radiologic studies consisted of complete skeletal radiographs of all patients. Enzyme assessment was performed for confirmation of the diagnosis.
RESULTS: The five patients were referred for genetic evaluation due to disproportionate short stature with short trunk accompanied by waddling gait. Age at referral varied from 11 months to 28 years. The most prevalent findings were joint restriction (4/5 patients), neuropsychomotor developmental delay (3/5), coarse facies (2/5), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (2/5), and mental retardation (1/4 patients). The most common radiological findings were anterior beaking of the vertebral bodies (5/5), shallow acetabular fossae (5/5), epiphyseal dysplasia (5/5), platyspondyly (4/5), pelvic dysplasia (4/5), decreased bone mineralization (4/5), scoliosis (3/5), wide and oar-shaped ribs (3/5), generalized epiphyseal ossification delay (3/5), and hypoplasia of basilar portions of ilea (3/5). Enzyme assessment showed α-iduronidase, α-mannosidase, β-glucuronidase, hexosaminidase A, and total hexosaminidase increased in plasma and normal glycosaminoglycans concentration. One patient was clinically classified as ML II and four patients as ML III.
CONCLUSIONS: The follow-up of five patients showed the typical clinical and radiological findings allowing the diagnosis, thus improving clinical management and providing adequate genetic counseling. Clinicians and radiologists can take advantage of the information from this work, enhancing their differential diagnosis ability.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational and retrospective study of five patients with clinical and radiological diagnosis of mucolipidosis. Clinical evaluation consisted of information obtained from records and including physical, neurologic, and dysmorphic evaluations. Radiologic studies consisted of complete skeletal radiographs of all patients. Enzyme assessment was performed for confirmation of the diagnosis.
RESULTS: The five patients were referred for genetic evaluation due to disproportionate short stature with short trunk accompanied by waddling gait. Age at referral varied from 11 months to 28 years. The most prevalent findings were joint restriction (4/5 patients), neuropsychomotor developmental delay (3/5), coarse facies (2/5), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (2/5), and mental retardation (1/4 patients). The most common radiological findings were anterior beaking of the vertebral bodies (5/5), shallow acetabular fossae (5/5), epiphyseal dysplasia (5/5), platyspondyly (4/5), pelvic dysplasia (4/5), decreased bone mineralization (4/5), scoliosis (3/5), wide and oar-shaped ribs (3/5), generalized epiphyseal ossification delay (3/5), and hypoplasia of basilar portions of ilea (3/5). Enzyme assessment showed α-iduronidase, α-mannosidase, β-glucuronidase, hexosaminidase A, and total hexosaminidase increased in plasma and normal glycosaminoglycans concentration. One patient was clinically classified as ML II and four patients as ML III.
CONCLUSIONS: The follow-up of five patients showed the typical clinical and radiological findings allowing the diagnosis, thus improving clinical management and providing adequate genetic counseling. Clinicians and radiologists can take advantage of the information from this work, enhancing their differential diagnosis ability.