Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
CIFASD: Dysmorphology Core
Kenneth L. Jones Ludmila Bakhireva Luther K. Robinson H. Eugene Hoyme Miguel del Campo Christina D. Chambers February, 2006 First of all, I would like to thank my collaborators: …… who encouraged me to pursue this topic and provided valuable feedback during the entire process. I also would like to thank my husband, Alexei Bakhirev, for his support, understanding, and willingness to listen to me as I worked my way through this project
2
Data obtained by the Dysmorphology Core as of January, 2006
Data obtained from 6 sites 1,167 exams uploaded to the Central Repository 743 unique subjects examined by expert dysmorphologists (basis of this report) 419 records (exams by local pediatricians & multiple exams per subject) excluded for the analysis purposes Osteoporosis and atherosclerosis are usually thought to be two independent processes that occur with aging. However, there is an increasing interest that these conditions are associated. Links between the two conditions were first noted more than one hundred years ago by German Pathologist Rudolf Virchow who first reported morphologic similarities between calcified plaque and bone tissue. Roentgenographic studies in the 1970s showed an association between calcification of the abdominal aorta and osteoporosis of the lumbar spine Recent molecular biology studies discovered cells with both osteoblastic and osteoclastic potential in vascular tissue, and bone-related proteins have been identified in calcified arterial and valvular lesions. Historically, this ectopic calcification was considered a degenerative process leading to passive precipitation of calcium phosphate. Molecular biology revealed that artery calcification is in fact an active process which is regulated by biological mechanisms similar to those of bone formation
3
Subjects Examined by Expert Dysmorphologists at Each Clinical Site (N=748)
% from total Luther Robinson, Buffalo 92 12.3% Phil May, Rome 232 31.0% Sarah Mattson, San Diego 77 10.3% Sarah Mattson, Moscow 58 7.8% Sarah Mattson, Finland 139 18.6% Sandra Jacobson, South Africa 150 20.1%
4
Description of the Sample (N=748)
5
Final Diagnoses (N=748)
6
Specific Aims: Identify the prevalence of key structural features among children with FAS. Identify the prevalence of additional structural features among children with FAS. Test whether the prevalence of key structural features in children with FAS varies by sex & age.
7
Key Structural Feature
Prevalence of Key Structural Features among Children Diagnosed with FAS (N=190) Key Structural Feature Prevalence (%) PFL≤10th percentile 74.7 Smooth philtrum 91.6 Thin Vermilion border 93.7
8
Additional Structural Feature
Prevalence of Additional Structural Features among Children Diagnosed with FAS (N=190) Additional Structural Feature Prevalence (%) Railroad track configuration of ears 11.1 Ptosis Camptodactyly 39.5 Difficulty in pronation/supination of elbows 10.5 Contractures in other joints 3.2 Hockey stick crease 20.0 Other altered palmar creases Heart murmur 9.0
9
Prevalence (%) of Key Structural Features by Age (190 Children with FAS)
Age Groups P-value ≤14 yrs (N=151) >14 yrs (N=39) Small PFL 76.8 66.7 >0.1 Smooth philtrum 90.7 94.9 Thin Vermilion border 92.7 97.4
10
Prevalence (%) of Key Structural Features by Sex (190 Children with FAS)
Age Groups P-value Males (N=88) Females (N=102) Small PFL 76.1 73.5 >0.1 Smooth philtrum 95.5 88.2 0.07 Thin Vermilion border 92.1 95.1
11
Conclusions Among key structural features, thin vermilion border has the highest prevalence among children with FAS. Among additional structural features, camptodactyly has the highest prevalence followed by altered palmar creases.
12
Conclusions (cont’d) No significant difference was found in the prevalence of key structural features by age among children with FAS No significant difference was found in the prevalence of key structural features by sex among children with FAS Smooth philtrum tended to have a slightly higher prevalence among boys compared to girls with FAS (95.5% vs 88.2%, respectively; p=0.07)
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.