4.1 Article

A further patient with van Maldergem syndrome

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 55, 期 6-7, 页码 423-428

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2012.02.012

关键词

Syndactyly; Camptodactyly; Clubfoot deformity; Microtia; Genital malformation; Developmental delay; van Maldergem syndrome

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) network grant [MR-NET 01GS08166]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report on a male patient with the proposed diagnosis of the rare but very distinct entity of van Maldergem syndrome. His parents are first cousins. At the age of 4 years the boy presented with severe developmental delay, talipes equinovarus, finger camptodactyly with interphalangeal pterygium, joint laxity, bilateral microtia, and a dysmorphic facies. He showed bilateral epicanthus, telecanthus, short palpebral fissures, broad flat nasal bridge, and dental malocclusion. The combination of the specific facial features with camptodactyly, interphalangeal pterygium, joint laxity and developmental delay led to the diagnosis of van Maldergem syndrome. The medical history was further on significant for pharyngeal instability requiring the placement of a tracheostomy tube, an inguinal hernia, hip subluxation, small kidneys and genital abnormalities (micropenis, bifid scrotum, cryptorchidism). Due to severe feeding difficulties permanent tube feeding was required. Metabolic tests (newborn metabolic screening, 7-dehydrocholesterol, amino acids, organic acids in urine) and chromosomal analysis (450-500 bands; 46,XY) were normal. Molecular karyotyping revealed two parental CNVs (paternal deletion of 9q33.1; maternal duplication of 11p15.1), which are unlikely to contribute to the patient's phenotype. Taken together, the report on a further patient with van Maldergem syndrome expands the clinical spectrum of the condition by adding genital malformations, hernia, pharyngeal instability, and subluxation of the hip. (c) 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据