4.6 Review

The syndrome of chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis and congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia. Report of a new family and a review

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 160, 期 12, 页码 705-710

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s004310100799

关键词

autosomal recessive syndrome; chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis; congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia; microcytosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new autosomal recessive syndrome of chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO) and congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia (CDA) with microcytosis has recently been described in four children (two sibships) of one consangineous Arab family. In this report, we describe the clinical features and course of the syndrome of CRMO and CDA in two additional patients (one sibship) from another consanguineous Arab family and review the literature. The two patients (brother and sister), the products of a consanguineous marriage, developed the syndrome at an early age of 3 weeks and 2 months respectively. The diagnosis of CRMO was confirmed by radiological and technetium isotope bone scans. Bone marrow studies confirmed the diagnosis of CDA. Peripheral blood films showed hypochromia and microcytosis. The sites involved by CRMO were periarticular, mainly around the elbow, knee, wrist and small joints of the hand. The brother is now 21 years old and the sister 3.5 years old and CRMO is still active with frequent relapses. The brother developed flexion deformities at the age of 13 years. Both patients failed to thrive; weight and height were below the 5th percentile. Conclusion: this is the second report of the syndrome of chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis and microcytic congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia, confirming it as a clinical entity, inherited as an autosomal recessive trait. The disease is characterised by an early onset, long clinical course of remissions and relapses, and seems to be different from the sporadic form of chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis.

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

4.6
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