4.1 Article

Ocular abnormalities in Apert syndrome: Genotype/phenotype correlations with fibroblast growth factor receptor type 2 mutations

Journal

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 521-527

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2006.07.012

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE Apert syndrome, a disorder of craniosynostosis, syndactyly, and other craniofacial malformations, is caused by point mutations (Ser252Trp or Pro253Arg) in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene. This study's goal was to determine ophthalmic phenotype/genotype correlatious in patients with either mutation. METHODS A retrospective chart review of demographic and ophthalmologic data was performed for 18 children carrying either the S252W (11) or the P253R (7) mutation. Fisher exact tests were performed to determine significance of variable phenotypes between the two mutation groups. RESULTS In the P253R group, 85% had strabismus (14% required surgery), 71% had ptosis, 43% had amblyopia, 14% had nasolacrimal duct obstruction, 14% had myopia, 14% had hyperopia, and 14% had astigmatism. In the S252,V group, 91% had strabismus (64% required surgery), 73% had ptosis, 73% had amblyopia, 100% had nasolacrinial duct obstruction, 36% had myopia, 9% had hyperopia, and 82% had astigmatism. Overall, S252W and P253R groups showed significantly different numbers of patients with strabismus requiring surgery (p = 0.039), superior rectus muscle underaction (p = 0.024), nasolacrinial duct obstruction (p = 0.0002), and astigmatism (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS Compared with patients with the P253R mutation, Apert syndrome patients with the S252W mutation may have more severe ocular phenotypes with a higher likelihood of developing strabismus, especially vertical deviation. They also are more likely to develop astigmatic refractive errors and tearing secondary to nasolacrinial system anomalies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available