4.1 Review

Thalidomide upper limb embryopathy - pathogenesis, past and present management and future considerations

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17531934231177425

关键词

Thalidomide; radial dysplasia; reversed shoulder; embryopathy; cereblon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review article provides a comprehensive overview of thalidomide upper limb embryopathy, including its pathogenesis, historical management of pediatric patients, experience with adult patient management, and early onset age-related changes associated with limb differences. Thalidomide, despite its withdrawal from the market, is still used to treat various conditions, but can cause embryo damage if not used safely. Recent research on thalidomide analogues shows promise in retaining clinical benefits without harmful effects. Understanding the challenges faced by thalidomide survivors as they age can improve healthcare for them and other individuals with congenital limb differences.
This review article provides a comprehensive overview of thalidomide upper limb embryopathy including updates about its pathogenesis, a historical account of the management of the paediatric thalidomide patient, experience with management of the adult patient, as well as creating awareness about early onset age-related changes associated with limb differences. Despite its withdrawal from the market in November 1961, novel discoveries have meant thalidomide is licensed again and currently still in use to treat a variety of conditions, including inflammatory disorders and some cancers. Yet, if not used safely, thalidomide still has the potential to cause damage to the embryo. Recent work identifying thalidomide analogues that retain clinical benefits yet without the harmful effects are showing great promise. Understanding the problems thalidomide survivors face as they age can allow surgeons to support their unique healthcare issues and translate these principles of care to other congenital upper limb differences.

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