Abstract
Purpose
More than 60 different mutations have been identified to be causal in syndromic forms of craniosynostosis. The majority of these mutations occur in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene (FGFR2). The clinical management of syndromic craniosynostosis varies based on the particular causal mutation. Additionally, the diagnosis of a patient with syndromic craniosynostosis is based on the clinical presentation, signs, and symptoms. The understanding of the hallmark features of particular syndromic forms of craniosynostosis leads to efficient diagnosis, management, and long-term prognosis of patients with syndromic craniosynostoses.
Methods
A comprehensive literature review was done with respect to the major forms of syndromic craniosynostosis and additional less common FGFR-related forms of syndromic craniosynostosis. Additionally, information and data gathered from studies performed in our own investigative lab (lab of Dr. Muenke) were further analyzed and reviewed. A literature review was also performed with regard to the genetic workup and diagnosis of patients with craniosynostosis.
Results
Patients with Apert syndrome (craniosynostosis syndrome due to mutations in FGFR2) are most severely affected in terms of intellectual disability, developmental delay, central nervous system anomalies, and limb anomalies. All patients with FGFR-related syndromic craniosynostosis have some degree of hearing loss that requires thorough initial evaluations and subsequent follow-up.
Conclusions
Patients with syndromic craniosynostosis require management and treatment of issues involving multiple organ systems which span beyond craniosynostosis. Thus, effective care of these patients requires a multidisciplinary approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In 1906, Eugene Apert, one of France’s most eminent pediatricians, described a group of nine different individuals with common physical characteristics and clinical findings. These patients were suffering from acrocephaly (“acro” is Greek for “peak” and “cephalo,” also from Greek, means “head”; together, they mean “peaked head”) and symmetric syndactyly (a condition where the bone or skin between the toes and fingers fuses together) of the hands and feet to varying degrees. This condition was named acrocephalosyndactyly by Apert [10] (see Fig. 1 for an early drawing of a child with Apert syndrome). Soon thereafter, other physicians began describing clusters of patients with similar constellations of physical characteristics and clinical features. These included Louis Crouzon (1912, Crouzon syndrome), Haakon Saethre and Fritz Chotzen (1931–1932, Saethre–Chotzen syndrome), and Rudolf Pfeiffer (1964, Pfeiffer syndrome) [17, 31, 82, 93]. For most of the twentieth century, these syndromes were diagnosed, identified, and characterized by clinicians on a purely clinical basis. The late twentieth century was a period of advancement for the field of molecular genetics. Scientists had the ability to screen genomes, find plausible candidate genes, and sequence genes for mutations. This led to a surge of gene discovery and a paradigm shift in the way conditions such as those described above were diagnosed, defined, and clinically managed. In this period, the genetic bases of Apert, Saethre–Chotzen, Crouzon, and Pfeiffer syndromes were discovered [50, 54, 61, 73, 92, 96, 105].
It was during this time period that Muenke syndrome was first defined. The story of the discovery of Muenke syndrome demonstrates the paradigm shift that occurred during this time in the diagnosis of syndromic forms of craniosynostosis. Muenke syndrome was initially defined on a molecular genetic basis, not on a clinical basis like the earlier forms of syndromic craniosynostosis defined in the early 1900s. The Muenke lab performed linkage analysis, a statistical method that is used to link specific genetic markers with phenotypic traits using, in this case, numerous large kindreds who were initially diagnosed clinically as segregating Pfeiffer syndrome. The initial result of the genome-wide linkage analysis combining the data from all families did not result in the identification of a chromosomal location. Only after data were combined from families with linkage peaks over similar chromosomal regions were specific regions identified: 8p, 10q, and 4p, respectively. Pfeiffer syndrome was mapped to chromosomes 8p and 10q [96]. Candidate gene studies in families linked to chromosome 4p found that affected individuals had a common mutation in FGFR3 [14, 74]. Dr. Victor McKusick named this syndrome Muenke syndrome.
Four genes have been identified that encode four fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs). Mutations in three of these genes, namely, FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3, have been implicated in the most common forms of syndromic craniosynostosis: Apert syndrome, Crouzon syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome, and Muenke syndrome. Additionally, mutations in TWIST, an upstream modulator of the FGFRs, is implicated in Saethre–Chotzen syndrome. Mutations in MSX2 (muscle segment homeobox 2) and EFNB1 (ephrin B1) cause Boston-type craniosynostosis and craniofrontonasal syndrome, respectively [53, 101].
In aggregate, syndromic craniosynostoses are estimated to comprise 15 % of all craniosynostoses. There are over 180 craniosynostosis syndromes identified to date. Currently, more than 60 different mutations have been identified to be causal in syndromic craniosynostoses, the majority of which occur in FGFR2 [37].
In this article, attention will be paid to syndromic craniosynostoses with regard to the diagnosis, genetic workup, and clinical management. Though most attention will be paid to the most common forms of syndromic craniosynostoses, it is important to keep in mind that there are numerous rare craniosynostosis syndromes that are less well characterized, both clinically and molecularly [84]. The clinical issues that occur in several of the uncommon craniosynostosis syndromes may be very different from the major syndromes. For example, severe mental impairment and perinatal death are more frequent in some of the uncommon syndromes, leading to a heavier focus on prenatal diagnosis, cognitive development, and genetic counseling [63].
Hallmark clinical features of major syndromic craniosynostoses
The major forms of syndromic craniosynostoses described in this article all have an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, with the exception of craniofrontonasal syndrome (X-linked; see Table 1 for additional information on the following syndromes).
Apert syndrome
Apert syndrome is characterized by the triad of midface hypoplasia, craniosynostosis most commonly of the coronal suture, and symmetric syndactyly of the hands and feet [105] (Fig. 2). It occurs in 15–16 of every 1,000,000 births [19]. Apert syndrome is associated with two mutations in FGFR2: the p.P253R mutation accounts for 33 % of the cases of Apert syndrome and is associated with more severe syndactyly when compared to the other causative mutation of Apert syndrome, p.S252W, which accounts for 66 % of cases and is strongly associated with cleft palate [28, 59, 62, 103, 105].
Crouzon syndrome
Multiple different mutations in the FGFR2 gene cause Crouzon syndrome, which is characterized clinically by craniosynostosis commonly involving the coronal suture, maxillary hypoplasia, shallow orbits, and prominent eyes (proptosis), secondary to early coalition of the skull sutures [54, 86].
Pfeiffer syndrome
Pfeiffer syndrome is associated with mutations in FGFR1 or FGFR2 [73, 92, 96]. In addition to craniosynostosis of the coronal suture, patients with Pfeiffer syndrome characteristically have midface hypoplasia; broad, medially deviated halluces; and variable soft tissue syndactyly (Fig. 3) [91]. Limb anomalies in Pfeiffer syndrome are independent of whether the mutation causing Pfeiffer syndrome occurs in FGFR1 or FGFR2 [90]. Additionally, mutations in FGFR2 are associated with more severe forms of Pfeiffer syndrome. Historically, three clinical subtypes of Pfeiffer syndrome have been described. Type 1 consists of the above description of Pfeiffer syndrome. Type 2 is characterized by, in addition to the above, cloverleaf skull (panysynostosis, where all calvarial sutures prematurely fuse), frequent elbow ankylosis/synostosis, and additional unusual anomalies. Type 3 is characterized by a very short anterior cranial base, ocular proptosis, elbow ankylosis/synostosis, and additional unusual anomalies. Some clinical overlap occurs between these subtypes [21, 26].
Muenke syndrome
Muenke syndrome is characterized by craniosynostosis, most commonly of the coronal suture, carpal, and/or tarsal bone fusion, and hearing loss (Fig. 4). Muenke syndrome is the most common form of syndromic craniosynostosis, with an incidence of 1 in 30,000 births. Unlike the syndromic craniosynostoses described here, a single defining point mutation is responsible for all cases of Muenke syndrome: c.749C > G, in the FGFR3 gene, resulting in p.Pro250Arg. Of note is that the homologous mutation in FGFR1 is responsible for the milder type of Pfeiffer syndrome, while the homologous mutation in FGFR2 is responsible for 33 % of cases of Apert syndrome.
Saethre–Chotzen syndrome
Coronal suture craniosynostosis, broad or bifid great toes, ptosis, characteristic appearance of the ear (small pinna with a prominent crus), and soft tissue syndactyly characterize Saethre–Chotzen syndrome, which is caused by mutations in the TWIST gene [50]. There is some phenotypic overlap of this syndrome with Muenke syndrome [60]. However, detailed clinical examination can differentiate the two syndromes from one another. For example, anomalies of the external ear are characteristic of Saethre–Chotzen syndrome, while extremely rare in Muenke syndrome (Fig. 5).
Craniofrontonasal syndrome
Caused by mutations in the EFNB1 (Ephrin B1) gene, which encodes one of eight known ephrin ligands, craniofrontonasal syndrome is characterized by marked hypertelorism, coronal suture synostosis, and a broad or bifid nasal tip [104]. It is an X-linked developmental malformation syndrome with an unusual inheritance pattern as females are more severely affected than males, the latter of which often only display hypertelorism and occasionally cleft lip and/or palate [89].
Molecular genetics in the testing and diagnosis of patients with craniosynostosis
Genetic testing is an essential part of the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected genetic conditions. Craniosynostosis is an etiologically heterogeneous disorder that may result from environmental as well as genetic factors. With the genetic testing available today, a genetic cause can be identified for 45 % of patients with craniosynostosis [56, 72, 106].
There are many advantages to identifying the genetic cause. These include the ability thereafter to more precisely predict the expected clinical course, determine the optimal care (for example, when deciding the timing of corrective surgery), and an improvement in genetic counseling ability, including as relates to reproductive decisions.
The stages of diagnostic workup in patients with craniosynostosis can be divided into three parts [46]: (1) clinical evaluation; (2) molecular genetic workup and testing; and (3) test result interpretation, genetic counseling, and management.
Part 1: Clinical evaluation
The first step should come prior to genetic testing. In this step, the clinician should complete a full history, including family history (with attention to craniosynostosis, abnormal head shape, cranial surgery, skeletal or seizure disorders, developmental delay, or other potential genetic conditions in the family); past medical history (including results of brain MRI if performed, maternal pregnancy history, and exposures); past surgical history; developmental history; and birth history. Additionally, in this step, patients should receive a full physical examination to assess for involved cranial sutures and head shape, craniofacial dysmorphisms, brain malformations, hearing, and limb anomalies [for example, clinicians should examine patient’s fingers and toes for syndactyly, (Apert syndrome) medial deviation of toes or thumbs (Pfeiffer syndrome), and for other anomalies].
Part 2: Molecular genetic workup and testing
In part 2, the clinician takes the armamentarium of what was uncovered in the history and physical to execute the next step, which is genetic testing. Whether or not genetic testing is indicated and performed depends mainly on the specific suture involved and the presence of additional anomalies, as well as the desires of the patients and their families.
In situations where there are additional malformations beyond craniosynostosis and/or the presence of profound developmental delay, a trained dysmorphologist should be included to evaluate whether the craniosynostosis is occurring as part of a more complex chromosomal or monogenic disorder. For these patients, first-line testing is chromosomal microarray to look for genomic imbalances (chromosomal duplications or deletions) [71]. Due to issues related to test availability, routine karyotype may also be considered. When an obvious syndrome-specific appearance is present (for example, the severe syndactyly of Apert syndrome or the hypertelorism, bifid nose, and longitudinal ridging of the nails in a female with craniofrontonasal syndrome), diagnosis is more straightforward and can often be confirmed by syndrome-specific testing. In such cases, a clinical diagnosis is generally confirmed with the appropriate molecular gene studies. With new technologies dramatically changing the way in which gene sequencing is performed, it is likely that in the near future, the approach will involve simultaneously sequencing large numbers of craniosynostosis-related genes as part of the standard genetic workup in affected patients.
Figure 6 demonstrates a genetic approach to the genetic testing for patients with craniosynostosis that has been adopted by many centers [106]. This algorithm is based on the involved sutures, resulting craniofacial dysmorphisms, and additional malformations.
Although targeted genetic testing is appropriate for patients in whom a specific diagnosis is suspected, the general issue arises whether those with non-syndromic synostosis should be offered genetic testing. Non-syndromic does not imply that a condition is not genetic as it is a term simply used to describe the absence of additional, clinically apparent anomalies that typically co-occur in the context of a syndrome. In a 2010 retrospective genetic study of craniosynostosis, causative mutations were present in 11 % of multi-suture, 37.5 % of bilateral coronal, and 17.5 % of unilateral coronal synostosis, but were absent in all patients with non-syndromic sagittal, metopic, and lambdoid synostosis [107]. Although the numbers of patients studied in some groups were relatively small, the low success rate of molecular diagnosis in sagittal synostosis has been independently confirmed. The positive diagnostic yield from molecular genetic testing in patients with non-syndromic craniosynostosis was substantially higher among children with isolated fusion of the coronal sutures [107]. Thus, patients with isolated, non-syndromic coronal craniosynostosis warrant genetic testing (these patients represent the first column of Fig. 6), whereas genetic testing is generally not advised for patients with isolated, non-syndromic sagittal, lambdoidal, or metopic synostoses.
Genetic testing in patients with isolated coronal suture synostosis begins with FGFR3 testing (Muenke syndrome). Testing then proceeds with testing of FGFR2, FGFR1, and TWIST (for Crouzon syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome, Saethre–Chotzen syndrome, and Jackson–Weiss syndrome). The last step in the genetic testing of these patients, if a causative mutation has not been found, is the assessment of copy number variations (such as whole-gene deletions) of the aforementioned genes.
For patients with additional malformations and/or profound developmental delay, the specific testing varies based on the specific suture involved. Among these patients, metopic synostosis is unique. The first step for patients with metopic craniosynostosis in the presence of additional malformations/anomalies and/or profound developmental delay is a chromosomal array study, which is indicated in order to determine the presence of genetic copy number variations (deletions or duplications of involved genes) as patients with syndromic metopic synostosis may frequently have chromosomal imbalances [56]. Interpretation of array studies may require parental studies.
Genetic testing should be performed by certified genetic laboratories (i.e., CLIA-certified) with expertise in the testing and interpretation of genetic testing for patients with craniosynostosis. Databases such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/GeneTests/lab?db=GeneTests contain updated lists of genetic laboratories that offer appropriate genetic testing. In this database, laboratories can be searched by gene name or suspected disease name.
Part 3: Test result interpretation, genetic counseling, and management
The results of genetic testing should be reported to families, keeping in mind that a negative result does not exclude other genetic causes that may not be covered by the analysis performed. For example, if one tests a patient with isolated coronal craniosynostosis for Muenke syndrome and the test is negative, the results should be reported as such, while being aware that this patient may have another genetic alteration that is not detected by the specific testing for Muenke syndrome. Thus, patients and families should be made aware that although one test is negative, it does not mean that the patient does not have a syndrome or that there is not a genetic etiology to the craniosynostosis.
Whenever possible, the results should be reported to families with a genetic counselor through a genetic counseling session. Genetic counseling before any genetic testing may be extremely beneficial so that patients can be informed what tests are being done and why, and what a positive and negative result may mean. In the cases of the craniosynostosis syndromes described, often, entire families may be tested or suspected to be affected due to the autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, with variable expressivity, of most of these syndromes. Families should be made aware that the testing of a proband (the first individual with a condition who presents to medical attention) may indicate that a parent is possibly affected as well. Families of patients often assume that because they have no medical issues, or are apparently clinically unaffected, they are automatically unaffected. However, for example, in Muenke syndrome, it is often the case that a seemingly clinically normal parent may give birth to a more severely affected child.
Patients should also be made aware that the presence of a genetic condition or syndrome does not change who they are or how they define their family. Rather, it provides an explanation for what they are experiencing medically. Additionally, this explanation can help them in the future to prepare them for what to expect clinically. For example, a patient with Muenke syndrome should be screened for low-frequency sensorineural hearing loss and should have developmental evaluations. Early intervention, made possible by awareness of the genetic basis for a patient with craniosynostosis, can lead to the most optimal outcome.
Management
Central nervous system, neurodevelopment
Central nervous system anomalies are common in patients with Apert and Pfeiffer syndromes. The most common anomalies are agenesis of the corpus callosum and ventriculomegaly [18, 23, 27, 45]. Anomalies of the corpus callosum have also been reported in patients with Muenke syndrome [1, 36]. Epilepsy has been reported in patients with Muenke syndrome, Saethre–Chotzen syndrome, and Apert syndrome [32, 35, 87, 88]. Patients with Apert syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome types 2 and 3, or who have neurologic abnormalities, developmental abnormalities, and/or epilepsy should receive a brain imaging study to identify structural anomalies.
Individuals with Apert syndrome, Pfeiffer syndromes types 2 and 3, and some individuals with Muenke syndrome commonly have some degree of neurocognitive impairment, whereas individuals with Crouzon syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome type 1, and Saethre–Chotzen syndrome tend to have normal cognitive function [26, 27, 108]. An exception in Saethre–Chotzen syndrome is those individuals with a microdeletion encompassing the TWIST gene [41, 58]; these individuals with Saethre–Chotzen often have profound developmental delay and/or intellectual disability. All patients with newly diagnosed craniosynostosis should receive developmental and cognitive screening evaluation, with appropriate therapies provided as needed. In children with developmental delay, particularly speech delay, a hearing evaluation may identify a potential contributing factor [42].
Intracranial hypertension is an important consideration in patients with craniosynostosis. Patients with multi-suture involvement and patients with FGFR2 mutations have the highest risk of increased intracranial pressure [39]. Fundoscopic exam should routinely be performed in these patients to evaluate for papilledema. The finding of papilledema warrants urgent surgical attention. Additional indicators of intracranial hypertension include headache, vomiting, abrupt change in behavior, lethargy, and a “copper beaten skull appearance” on skull radiographs (Fig. 7).
Surgical intervention
In the absence of intracranial hypertension, surgical intervention—cranial vault reconstruction—is performed in the first 6–8 months of life, when the re-ossification potential is high [29]. Additionally, recently, endoscopic strip craniectomies have been performed, in which patients undergo the endoscopic suture release at a younger age (3 months), followed by postoperative helmet therapy [16, 57].
Preoperatively, attention should be paid to the growth and development of the midface, particularly in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis as patients with Pfeiffer, Crouzon, or Apert syndrome are more likely to have anesthetic complications compared to non-syndromic patients (e.g., difficult intubation due to midface hypoplasia) [13, 76]. The main surgical risks are intraoperative blood loss and re-bleeding. For many families, the major concern is the risk of brain injury or injury to the optic nerve. The risk of this is actually significantly low.
Even after surgical correction, various levels of recurrent deformity and/or elevated intracranial pressure may occur. These issues occur with a greater severity and higher frequency in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis [49, 99]. Thus, these patients should receive long-term postoperative surveillance until approximately 12 years of age, when brain bulk growth is complete. This surveillance program should include ophthalmoscopic exams at 3-month intervals in patients with multi-suture synostosis (including patients with Crouzon, Apert, Pfeiffer, Saethre–Chotzen, and Muenke syndromes) and at 6-month intervals in patients with sagittal suture synostosis and other single-suture synostoses [29]. Additionally, patients with central nervous system malformations including hydrocephalus and Chiari malformations should receive appropriate monitoring and treatment for these issues.
Ophthalmologic considerations
As described, in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis, fundoscopic exams are indicated both pre- and postoperatively and should be done repeatedly. The occurrence of papilledema, a marker of intracranial hypertension, is most common in patients with FGFR2-related craniosynostoses (Apert, Crouzon, and Pfeiffer syndromes). Papilledema may occur in patients without an identified genetic mutation, but is more common in patients with a known genetic mutation. The etiology of this phenomenon is unknown, though it is likely that the increased intracranial pressure observed in these former patients is an effect of the combination of differences in the formation and morphology of the skull, brain, dura, and cranial sutures that occurs due to the underlying genetic mutation.
In some cases, craniosynostosis leads to shallow orbits, which can cause proptosis, or forward displacement of the globe. In severe proptosis, a patient may be unable to close the eyelids, leading to exposure keratitis and corneal ulcers, resulting in visual impairment and scarring. To prevent this, lubricants should be used if the palpebral fissure remains open >2 mm during sleep [42]. In some severe cases, patients may require tarsorrhaphies (surgical procedure in which the eyelids are partially sewn together to narrow the opening) or urgent cranial vault reconstructive surgery to correct the deformity. Additional ophthalmologic issues that can occur include tear duct stenosis and ptosis (commonly in Saethre–Chotzen syndrome), hypertelorism, down-slanting palpebral fissures, strabismus, and amblyopia. Cranial vault surgery can correct several of these issues, particularly strabismus and hypertelorism, and thus strabismus correction should be deferred until after the patient undergoes cranial vault reconstruction. Interestingly, an ophthalmologic outcomes study in 2009 demonstrated that children with unilateral coronal craniosynostosis who received endoscopic strip craniectomy had improved ophthalmologic outcomes (measured by strabismus severity) compared to those who received fronto-orbital advancement (cranial vault reconstruction) [68].
Respiratory considerations
Patients with syndromic craniosynostosis may have obstructive sleep apnea, feeding difficulties, failure to thrive, and cor pulmonale as a result of midfacial hypoplasia, choanal stenosis, and narrowing of the nasopharyngeal space [20]. Midface advancement may lead to respiratory improvements in these patients [78].
Special care should be taken in the planning process for anesthesia and intubation of these patients. Additionally, patients with Pfeiffer syndrome types 2 and 3 may have a tracheal cartilaginous sleeve, a condition where a continuous segment of cartilage extends from below the subglottis to the carina or mainstem bronchi, which can result in the need for a tracheostomy and indicate a relatively poor prognosis [48].
Oral considerations
Palatal anomalies, including cleft palate and high arched palate, have been reported in the most common craniosynostosis syndromes, including Pfeiffer syndrome (associated with mutations in FGFR1 and FGFR2), Saethre–Chotzen syndrome (TWIST), Apert syndrome (FGFR2), Muenke syndrome (FGFR3), and Crouzon syndrome (FGFR2) [3, 59, 81, 97, 98]. Thus, all patients with syndromic craniosynostosis should have a palatal exam. In patients with a high arched palate, a palatal expander may be considered as it has been shown to reduce the resultant effect of the high arched palate on dental crowding and malocclusion [3]. Due to a combinatory effect of growth failure of the skull base, high arched palate, and craniosynostosis, dental issues commonly encountered in this patient population include overbite, crossbite, and dental crowding.
Audiologic and otologic considerations
Chronic otitis media occurs with a high frequency in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis. There are many contributory factors, including the effect of the high arched palate on the function of the tensor veli palatini, a muscle that functions in the opening and closing of the Eustachian tube, as well as growth deficiency in the skull base. Additionally, in those patients with cleft palate, the aberrant attachment of the levator veli palatini leads to impaired ventilation of the middle ear, which can result in recurrent otitis media with effusion. Recurrent otitis media leads to conductive hearing loss, a type of hearing loss that is common in syndromic forms of craniosynostosis. Muenke syndrome is unique among the other FGFR-related craniosynostoses as it is the only craniosynostosis syndrome characterized by a low-frequency sensorineural hearing loss in almost all patients [33, 49].
A literature review of hearing loss in craniosynostosis syndromes revealed that hearing loss occurs as a component part of or has at least been reported in all of the FGFR-related craniosynostosis syndromes (Agochukwu 2012, Muenke lab, unpublished; see Table 2 for a summary of the audiologic and otologic manifestations of these syndromic craniosynostoses).
Once a patient has a confirmed diagnosis of a craniosynostosis syndrome, a comprehensive audiologic evaluation should follow. In Muenke syndrome, hearing testing should devote particular attention to low frequencies due to characteristic low- to mid-frequency hearing loss. This is of particular importance as newborn hearing screens and many school-based hearing screens tend to focus on the mid and high frequencies [33]. If hearing loss is confirmed, the next steps depend on whether it is a sensorineural, conductive, or a mixed hearing loss. Patients with confirmed hearing loss should have a comprehensive otologic and inner ear evaluation, including imaging, to thoroughly evaluate the otologic structures. Inner ear imaging studies in Apert syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome, and Crouzon syndrome have demonstrated that patients have a high frequency of inner and middle ear anomalies including, but not limited to, malformations and/or hyoplasia of middle ear ossicles, dysmorphic semicircular canals, and atresia of the auditory canals [12, 15, 38, 51, 64, 67, 75, 85, 102, 109] (Table 2).
Patients with otitis media with effusion may benefit from tympanostomy tube insertion and antibiotic treatment as recurrent otitis media with effusion is a known cause of conductive hearing loss. There are many sequelae of recurrent otitis media that may lead to hearing loss in addition to other problems, including tympanic membrane perforation, tympanic membrane atelectasis, and cholesteatoma. Additionally, persistent conductive hearing loss in childhood has been associated with the development of sensorineural hearing loss later in life [79]. Amplification via hearing aids or cochlear implants should be recommended as indicated by the severity of the hearing loss. Regardless of the type and severity of hearing loss, these patients mandate close follow-up. Although hearing loss may remain stable, it can also progress, leading to the necessity of new interventions (e.g., cochlear implants or hearing aids). School-aged children with hearing loss greatly benefit from special accommodations such as sound field amplification and preferential seating, which has been shown to improve speech perception [65].
Visceral organs
Patients with Apert syndrome, Pfeiffer syndrome types 2 and 3, and patients with craniosynostosis due to chromosomal imbalances should receive an echocardiogram and ultrasound of the kidneys and urinary tract. These individuals often have structural abnormalities of these organs [21, 24, 34, 70]. In a study of Apert syndrome, it was found that cardiac anomalies and genitourinary anomalies were present in 10 and 9.6 % of patients, respectively [24].
Musculoskeletal considerations
Limb anomalies are common in Apert, Pfeiffer, Crouzon, Jackson–Weiss, Saethre–Chotzen, and Muenke syndromes (Table 3). Skeletal anomalies, including carpal and tarsal bone fusions and/or cervical spine abnormalities, are common in Apert, Pfeiffer, Crouzon, Jackson–Weiss, Saethre–Chotzen, and Muenke syndromes [4]. Additional anomalies of the limb include radiohumeral synostosis, short humeri, and elbow ankylosis/synostosis in Apert and Pfeiffer syndromes [7, 8, 22, 25] (Table 3). In patients with syndromic craniosynostosis and symptoms of extremity pain, limping, arthralgias, abnormal gait, and/or other similar symptoms, imaging should be considered due to the known associated limb anomalies.
Limb anomalies in Apert syndrome extend beyond tarsal coalition, are more severe in the upper limb, and are the most severe of all the craniosynostosis syndromes. Illegitimate autocrine activation of mutated mesenchymal FGFR2c p.P253 by the fibroblast growth factor 10 (FGF10) ligand is responsible for the syndactyly in Apert syndrome; the p.P253R mutation accounts for 33 % of cases of Apert syndrome and is associated with more severe syndactyly when compared to the other causative mutation of Apert syndrome, p.S252W, which accounts for 66 % of cases [28, 44, 52, 62, 103, 105]. This is confirmed by a mouse model of Apert syndrome in which Fgf10 knockdown rescues some of the skeletal anomalies [44].
Patients with Apert syndrome should be evaluated by an experienced hand surgeon within the first 6 months of life; syndactyly release is typically performed in stages.
Conclusions
Historically, the early care of infants and children with syndromic craniosynostosis has focused purely on the surgical correction of the synostotic suture. However, clinical studies and research have shown that these individuals have a number of other medical issues. Though not always as obvious as the craniosynostosis, recognition and management of these other issues can be beneficial in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes and can help both the proband as well as other family members who may be ultimately found to be affected. These issues affect multiple systems and warrant considerations that frequently require a multidisciplinary approach. The care of these patients has evolved to include a diverse team of specialists including plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, geneticists, dentists, neurologists, speech pathologists, audiologists, otolaryngologists, orthopedists, and social workers, among others.
References
Abdel-Salam GM, Flores-Sarnat L, El-Ruby MO, Parboosingh J, Bridge P, Eid MM, El-Badry TH, Effat L, Curatolo P, Temtamy SA, Muenke M (2011) Syndrome with pigmentary disorder and probable hemimegalencephaly: an expansion of the phenotype. Am J Med Genet A 155A:207–214
Ades LC, Mulley JC, Senga IP, Morris LL, David DJ, Haan EA (1994) Jackson-Weiss syndrome: clinical and radiological findings in a large kindred and exclusion of the gene from 7p21 and 5qter. Am J Med Genet 51:121–130
Agochukwu NB, Solomon BD, Doherty ES, Muenke M (2012) The palatal and oral manifestations of Muenke syndrome (FGFR3-related craniosynostosis). J Craniofac Surg (in press)
Agochukwu NB, Solomon BD, Benson LJ, Muenke M (2012) Talocalcaneal coalition in Muenke syndrome: report of a case, review of the literature in FGFR-related craniosynostoses, and consideration of mechanism. Am J Med Genet (in press)
Anderson PJ, Hall CM, Evans RD, Hayward RD, Jones BM (1999) The feet in Apert's syndrome. J Pediatr Orthop 19:504–507
Anderson PJ, Hall CM, Evans RD, Jones BM, Hayward RD (1998) The feet in Pfeiffer syndrome. J Craniofac Surg 9:98–102
Anderson PJ, Hall CM, Evans RD, Jones BM, Hayward RD (1997) Hand anomalies in Crouzon syndrome. Skeletal Radiol 26:113–115
Anderson PJ, Hall CM, Smith PJ, Evans RD, Hayward RD, Jones BM (1997) The hands in Pfeiffer syndrome. J Hand Surg 22B:537–540
Anderson PJ, Hall CM, Evans RD, Hayward RD, Jones BM (1997) The feet in Crouzon syndrome. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 17:43–47
Apert E (1906) Del’acrocephalosyndactylie. Bull Mem Soc Med Hop Paris 243:1310
Asnes RS, Morehead CD (1969) Pfeiffer syndrome. Birth Defects: Original Article Series 5:198-203
Aubry M (1955) Examin otologique de 10 cas de disostose craniofaciale de Crouzon. Rev Neurol 63:302–305
Basar H, Buyukkocak U, Kaymak C, Akpinar S, Sert O, Vargel I (2007) An intraoperative unexpected respiratory problem in a patient with Apert syndrome. Minerva Anestesiol 73:603–606
Bellus GA, Gaudenz K, Zackai EH, Clarke LA, Szabo J, Francomano CA, Muenke M (1996) Identical mutations in three different fibroblast growth factor receptor genes in autosomal dominant craniosynostosis syndromes. Nat Genet 14:174–176
Boedts D (1967) La surdite dans la dysostose craniofaciale ou maladie de Crouzon. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 21:143–155
Brown L, Proctor MR (2011) Endoscopically assisted correction of sagittal craniosynostosis. AORN J 93:566–579
Chotzen F (1932) Eine eigenartige familiare Entwicklungsstorung (Akrocephalosyndaktylie, Dysostosis craniofacialis und Hypertelorismus). Monatsschr Kinderheilk 55:97–122
Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S (1990) The central nervous system in the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 35:36–45
Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S, Lammer EJ, Cordero JF, Mastroiacovo P, Erickson JD, Roeper P, Martínez-Frías ML (1992) Birth prevalence study of the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 42:655–659
Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S (1992) Upper and lower airway compromise in the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 44:90–93
Cohen MM Jr (1993) Pfeiffer syndrome update, clinical subtypes, and guidelines for differential diagnosis. Am J Med Genet 45:300–307
Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S (1993) Skeletal abnormalities in the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 47:624–632
Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S (1993) Growth and development in the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1(47):617–623
Cohen MM Jr, Kreiborg S (1993) Visceral anomalies in the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 45:758–760
Cohen MM, Kreiborg S (1995) Hands and feet in the Apert syndrome. Am J Med Genet 57:82–96
Cohen MM Jr (2000) Pfeiffer syndrome. In: Cohen MM Jr, MacLean RE (eds) Craniosynostosis: diagnosis, evaluation and management. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 361–365
Cohen MM Jr (2000) Apert syndrome. In: Cohen MM Jr, MacLean RE (eds) Craniosynostosis: diagnosis, evaluation and management. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 316–353
Cohen MM (2011) Apert, Crouzon and Pfeiffer syndromes. In: Muenke M, Kress W, Collman H, Solomon BD (eds) Monographs in human genetics. Craniosynostoses: molecular genetics, principles of diagnosis and treatment, vol 19. Karger Publishing, Basel, pp 67–88
Collman H, Schweitzer T, Bohm H (2011) Imaging studies and neurosurgical treatment. In: Muenke M, Kress W, Collman H, Solomon BD (eds) Monographs in human genetics. Craniosynostoses: molecular genetics, principles of diagnosis and treatment, vol 19. Karger Publishing, Basel, pp 216–231
Craig CL, Goldberg MJ (1977) Calcaneocuboid coalition in Crouzon’s syndrome craniofacial dysostosis): report of a case and review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59:826–827
Crouzon O (1912) Dysostose cranio-faciale hereditaire. Bull Soc Med Paris 33:545–555
de Jong T, Mathijssen IM, Hoogeboom AJ (2011) Additional phenotypic features of Muenke syndrome in 2 Dutch families. J Craniofac Surg 22(2):571–575
Doherty ES, Lacbawan F, Hadley DW, Brewer C, Zalewski C, Kim HJ, Solomon B, Rosenbaum K, Domingo DL, Hart TC, Brooks BP, Immken L, Lowry RB, Kimonis V, Shanske AL, Jehee FS, Bueno MR, Knightly C, McDonald-McGinn D, Zackai EH, Muenke M (2007) Muenke syndrome (FGFR3-related craniosynostosis): expansion of the phenotype and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet A 143:3204–3215
Ekure EN, Animashaun A, Bastos M, Ezeaka VC (2009) Congenital heart diseases associated with identified syndromes and other extra-cardiac congenital malformations in children in Lagos. West Afr J Med 28:33–37
Elia M, Musumeci SA, Ferri R, Greco D, Romano C, Del Gracco S, Stefanini MC (1996) Saethre–Chotzen syndrome: a clinical, EEG and neuroradiological study. Childs Nerv Syst 12:699–704
Escobar LF, Hiett AK, Marnocha A (2009) Significant phenotypic variability of Muenke syndrome in identical twins. Am J Med Genet A 149A:1273–1276
Eun SH, Ha KS, Je BK, Lee ES, Choi BM, Lee JH, Eun BL, Yoo KH (2007) The first Korean case of Beare–Stevenson syndrome with a Tyr375Cys mutation in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene. J Korean Med Sci 22:352–356
Gerlings PG (1947) Clinical and histopathological investigations of the labyrinth in oxycephaly. Acta Otolaryngol 35:91
Greene AK, Mulliken JB, Proctor MR, Meara JG, Rogers GF (2008) Phenotypically unusual combined craniosynostoses: presentation and management. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:853–862
Gripp KW, Stolle CA, McDonald-McGinn DM, Markowitz RI, Bartlett SP, Katowitz JA, Muenke M, Zackai EH (1998) Phenotype of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 Ser351Cys mutation: Pfeiffer syndrome type III. Am J Med Genet 78:356–360
Gripp KW, Kasparcova V, McDonald-McGinn DM, Bhatt S, Bartlett SP, Storm AL, Drumheller TC, Emanuel BS, Zackai EH, Stolle CA (2001) A diagnostic approach to identifying submicroscopic 7p21 deletions in Saethre–Chotzen syndrome: fluorescence in situ hybridization and dosage-sensitive Southern blot analysis. Genet Med 3:102–108
Gripp KW (2011) Clinical approach to craniosynostosis. In: Muenke M, Kress W, Collman H, Solomon BD (eds) Monographs in human genetics. Craniosynostoses: molecular genetics, principles of diagnosis and treatment, vol 19. Karger Publishing, Basel, pp 199–215
Hackett A, Rowe L (2006 Oct) FGFR1 Pfeiffer syndrome without craniosynostosis: an additional case report. Clin Dysmorphol 15:207–210
Hajihosseini MK, Duarte R, Pegrum J, Donjacour A, Lana-Elola E, Rice DP, Sharpe J, Dickson C (2009) Evidence that Fgf10 contributes to the skeletal and visceral defects of an Apert syndrome mouse model. Dev Dyn 238:376–385
Hanieh A, David DJ (1993) Apert’s syndrome. Childs Ner Syst 9:289–291
Hehr U (2011) Molecular genetic testing of patients with craniosynostosis. In: Muenke M, Kress W, Collman H, Solomon BD (eds) Monographs in human genetics. Craniosynostoses: molecular genetics, principles of diagnosis and treatment, vol 19. Karger Publishing, Basel, pp 177–183
Heike C, Seto M, Hing A, Palidin A, Hu FZ, Preston RA, Ehrlich GD, Cunningham M (2001) Century of Jackson-Weiss syndrome: further definition of clinical and radiographic findings in “lost” descendants of the original kindred. Am J Med Genet 100:315–324
Hockstein NG, McDonald-McGinn D, Zackai E, Bartlett S, Huff DS, Jacobs IN (2004) Tracheal anomalies in Pfeiffer syndrome. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:1298–1302
Honnebier MB, Cabiling DS, Hetlinger M, McDonald-McGinn DM, Zackai EH, Bartlett SP (2008) The natural history of patients treated for FGFR3-associated (Muenke-type) craniosynostosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:919–931
Howard TD, Paznekas WA, Green ED, Chiang LC, Ma N, Ortiz de Luna RI, Garcia Delgado C, Gonzalez-Ramos M, Kline AD, Jabs EW (1998) Mutations in TWIST, a basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor, in Saethre–Chotzen syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 62:1370–1380
Huang F, Sweet R, Tewfik TL (2004) Apert syndrome and hearing loss with ear anomalies: a case report and literature review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 68:495–501
Ibrahimi OA, Zhang F, Eliseenkova AV, Linhardt RJ, Mohammadi M (2004) Proline to arginine mutations in FGF receptors 1 and 3 result in Pfeiffer and Muenke craniosynostosis syndromes through enhancement of FGF binding affinity. Hum Mol Genet 13:69–78
Jabs EW, Müller U, Li X, Ma L, Luo W, Haworth IS, Klisak I, Sparkes R, Warman ML, Mulliken JB, Snead ML, Maxson R (1993) A mutation in the homeodomain of the human MSX2 gene in a family affected with autosomal dominant craniosynostosis. Cell 75:443–450
Jabs EW, Li X, Scott AF, Meyers G, Chen W, Eccles M, Mao JI, Charnas LR, Jackson CE, Jaye M (1994) Jackson–Weiss and Crouzon syndromes are allelic with mutations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 2. Nat Genet 8:275–279, Erratum in: Nat Genet (1995) 9:451
Jackson CE, Weiss L, Reynolds WA, Forman TF, Peterson JA (1976) Craniosynostosis midface hypoplasia, and foot abnormalities: an autosomal dominant phenotype in a large Amish kindred. J Pediatr 88:963–968
Jehee FS, Krepischi-Santos AC, Rocha KM, Cavalcanti DP, Kim CA, Bertola DR, Alonso LG, D’Angelo CS, Mazzeu JF, Froyen G, Lugtenberg D, Vianna-Morgante AM, Rosenberg C, Passos-Bueno MR (2008) High frequency of submicroscopic chromosomal imbalances in patients with syndromic craniosynostosis detected by a combined approach of microsatellite segregation analysis, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and array-based comparative genome hybridisation. J Med Genet 45:447–450
Jimenez DF, Barone CM (1998) Endoscopic craniectomy for early surgical correction of sagittal craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg 88:77–81
Johnson D, Horsley SW, Moloney DM, Oldridge M, Twigg SR, Walsh S, Barrow M, Njølstad PR, Kunz J, Ashworth GJ, Wall SA, Kearney L, Wilkie AO (1998) A comprehensive screen for TWIST mutations in patients with craniosynostosis identifies a new microdeletion syndrome of chromosome band 7p21.1. Am J Hum Genet 63:1282–1293
Kreiborg S, Cohen MM Jr (1992) The oral manifestations of Apert syndrome. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 12:41–48
Kress W, Schropp C, Lieb G, Petersen B, Büsse-Ratzka M, Kunz J, Reinhart E, Schäfer WD, Sold J, Hoppe F, Pahnke J, Trusen A, Sörensen N, Krauss J, Collmann H (2006) Saethre–Chotzen syndrome caused by TWIST 1 gene mutations: functional differentiation from Muenke coronal synostosis syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet 14:39–48
Lajeunie E, Ma HW, Bonaventure J, Munnich A, Le Merrer M, Renier D (1995) FGFR2 mutations in Pfeiffer syndrome. Nat Genet 9(2):108
Lajeunie E, Cameron R, El Ghouzzi V, de Parseval N, Journeau P, Gonzales M, Delezoide AL, Bonaventure J, Le Merrer M, Renier D (1999) Clinical variability in patients with Apert’s syndrome. J Neurosurg 90:443–447
Lajeunie E, Barcik U, Thorne JA, El Ghouzzi V, Bourgeois M, Renier D (2001) Craniosynostosis and fetal exposure to sodium valproate. J Neurosurg 95:778–782
Lemairey A, Paquelin F, Thomas R (1962) La dysostose craniofaciale de Crouzon. Ann Otolaryngol 79:10–11
Lewis MS, Crandell CC, Valente M, Horn JE (2004) Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. J Am Acad Audiol 15:426–439
Li X, Lewanda AF, Eluma F, Jerald H, Choi H, Alozie I, Proukakis C, Talbot CC Jr, Vander-Kolk C, Bird LM, Jones MC, Cunningham M, Clarren SK, Pyeritz RE, Weissenbach J, Jackson CE, Jabs EW (1994) Two craniosynostotic syndrome loci, Crouzon and Jackson-Weiss, map to chromosome 10q-q26. Genomics 22:418–424
Lücke D, Stroszczynski C, Gartenschläger S, Olze H (2006) Otologic findings in the Apert syndrome. Laryngorhinootologie 85:344–347
MacKinnon S, Rogers GF, Gregas M, Proctor MR, Mulliken JB, Dagi LR (2009) Treatment of unilateral coronal synostosis by endoscopic strip craniectomy or fronto-orbital advancement: ophthalmologic findings. J AAPOS 13:155–160
Mah J, Kasser J, Upton J (1991) The foot in Apert syndrome. Clin Plast Surg 18:391–398
McCann E, Sweeney E, Sills J, May P, Smith S (2006) Pfeiffer-type cardiocranial syndrome: a patient with features of this condition and with an unbalanced subtelomeric rearrangement involving chromosomes 1p and 17q. Clin Dysmorphol 15:81–84
Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, Biesecker LG, Brothman AR, Carter NP, Church DM, Crolla JA, Eichler EE, Epstein CJ, Faucett WA, Feuk L, Friedman JM, Hamosh A, Jackson L, Kaminsky EB, Kok K, Krantz ID, Kuhn RM, Lee C, Ostell JM, Rosenberg C, Scherer SW, Spinner NB, Stavropoulos DJ, Tepperberg JH, Thorland EC, Vermeesch JR, Waggoner DJ, Watson MS, Martin CL, Ledbetter DH (2010) Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 86:749–764
Morriss-Kay GM, Wilkie AO (2005) Growth of the normal skull vault and its alteration in craniosynostosis: insights from human genetics and experimental studies. J Anat 207:637–653
Muenke M, Schell U, Hehr A, Robin NH, Losken HW, Schinzel A, Pulleyn LJ, Rutland P, Reardon W, Malcolm S, Winter RM (1994) A common mutation in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 gene in Pfeiffer syndrome. Nat Genet 8:269–274
Muenke M, Gripp KW, McDonald-McGinn DM, Gaudenz K, Whitaker LA, Bartlett SP, Markowitz RI, Robin NH, Nwokoro N, Mulvihill JJ, Losken HW, Mulliken JB, Guttmacher AE, Wilroy RS, Clarke LA, Hollway G, Ades LC, Haan EA, Mulley JC, Cohen MM, Bellus GA, Francomano CA, Moloney DM, Wall SA, Wilkie AO, Zackai EH (1997) A unique point mutation in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene (FGFR3) defines a new craniosynostosis syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 60:555–564
Nager FR (1936) L’oreille dans la maladie de Crouzon. Bull Acad Med 116:349–359
Nargozian C (1991) Apert syndrome. Anesthetic management. Clin Plast Surg 18:227–230
Naveh Y, Friedman A (1976 Aug) Pfeiffer syndrome: report of a family and review of the literature. J Med Genet 13(4):277–280
Nout E, Bannink N, Koudstaal MJ, Veenland JF, Joosten KF, Poublon RM, van der Wal KG, Mathijssen IM, Wolvius EB (2012) Upper airway changes in syndromic craniosynostosis patients following midface or monobloc advancement: correlation between volume changes and respiratory outcome. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 40:209–214
Paparella MM, Oda M, Hiraide F, Brady D (1972) Pathology of sensorineural hearing loss in otitis media. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 81:632–647
Park WJ, Meyers GA, Li X, Theda C, Day D, Orlow SJ, Jones MC, Jabs EW (1995) Novel FGFR2 mutations in Crouzon and Jackson-Weiss syndromes show allelic heterogeneity and phenotypic variability. Hum Mol Genet 4:1229–1233
Peterson SJ, Pruzansky S (1974) Palatal anomalies in the syndromes of Apert and Crouzon. Cleft Palate J 11:394–403
Pfeiffer RA (1964) Dominant hereditary acrocephalosyndactylia. Z Kinderheilkd 90:301–320
Proudman TW, Moore MH, Abbott AH, David DJ (1994) Noncraniofacial manifestations of Crouzon’s disease. J Craniofac Surg 5:218–224
Raam MS, Muenke M (2011) Uncommon craniosynostosis syndromes: a review of thirteen conditions. In: Muenke M, Kress W, Collman H, Solomon BD (eds) Monographs in human genetics. Craniosynostoses: molecular genetics, principles of diagnosis and treatment, vol 19. Karger Publishing, Basel, pp 119–142
Rajenderkumar D, Bamiou DE, Sirimanna T (2005) Audiological profile in Apert syndrome. Arch Dis Child 90:592–593
Reardon W, Winter RM, Rutland P, Pulleyn LJ, Jones BM, Malcolm S (1994) Mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene cause Crouzon syndrome. Nat Genet 8:98–103
Rebelo N, Duarte R, Costa MJ, Leal MJ (2002) Acrocephalosyndactyly—the coalesced hand. Eur J Pediatr Surg 12:49–55
Ridgway EB, Wu JK, Sullivan SR, Vasudavan S, Padwa BL, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB (2011) Craniofacial growth in patients with FGFR3Pro250Arg mutation after fronto-orbital advancement in infancy. J Craniofac Surg 22:455–461
Rollnick B, Day D, Tissot R, Kaye C (1981) A pedigree possible evidence for the metabolic interference hypothesis. Am J Hum Genet 33:823–826
Roscioli T, Flanagan S, Kumar P, Masel J, Gattas M, Hyland VJ, Glass IA (2000) Clinical findings in a patient with FGFR1 P252R mutation and comparison with the literature. Am J Med Genet 93:22–28
Rossi M, Jones RL, Norbury G, Bloch-Zupan A, Winter RM (2003 Oct) The appearance of the feet in Pfeiffer syndrome caused by FGFR1 P252R mutation. Clin Dysmorphol 12(4):269–274
Rutland P, Pulleyn LJ, Reardon W, Baraitser M, Hayward R, Jones B, Malcolm S, Winter RM, Oldridge M, Slaney SF, Poole MD, Wilkie AOM (1995) Identical mutations in the FGFR2 gene cause both Pfeiffer and Crouzon syndrome phenotypes. Nat Genet 9:173–176
Saethre H (1931) Beitrag zum Turmshadelproblem (Pathogenese, Erblichkeit und Symptomatologic). Dtsch Z Nervenheilk 117:533–555
Saldino RM, Steinbach HL, Epstein CJ (1972) Familial acrocephalosyndactyly (Pfeiffer Syndrome). Am J Roentgenol 116:609–622
Schauerte EW, St Aubin PM (1966) Progressive synostosis in Apert's syndrome (acrocephalosyndactyly), with a description of the roentgenographic changes in the feet. Am J Roentgenol 97:67–73
Schell U, Hehr A, Feldman GJ, Robin NH, Zackai EH, de Die-Smulders C, Viskochil DH, Stewart JM, Wolff G, Ohashi H et al (1995) Mutations in FGFR1 and FGFR2 cause familial and sporadic Pfeiffer syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 4:323–328
Stoler JM, Rosen H, Desai U, Mulliken JB, Meara JG, Rogers GF (2009) Cleft palate in Pfeiffer syndrome. J Craniofac Surg 20:1375–1377
Stoler JM, Rogers GF, Mulliken JB (2009) The frequency of palatal anomalies in Saethre–Chotzen syndrome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 46:280–284
Thomas GP, Wilkie AO, Richards PG, Wall SA (2005) FGFR3 P250R mutation increases the risk of reoperation in apparent ‘nonsyndromic’ coronal craniosynostosis. J Craniofac Surg 16:347–352
Trusen A, Beissert M, Collmann H, Darge K (2003) The pattern of skeletal anomalies in the cervical spine, hands and feet in patients with Saethre-Chotzen syndrome and Muenke-type mutation. Pediatr Radiol 33:168–172
Twigg SR, Kan R, Babbs C, Bochukova EG, Robertson SP, Wall SA, Morriss-Kay GM, Wilkie AO (2004) Mutations of ephrin-B1 (EFNB1), a marker of tissue boundary formation, cause craniofrontonasal syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8652–8657
Vallino-Napoli LD (1996) Audiologic and otologic characteristics of Pfeiffer syndrome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 33:524–529
Von Gernet S, Golla A, Ehrenfels Y, Schuffenhauer S, Fairley JD (2000) Genotype–phenotype analysis in Apert syndrome suggests opposite effects of the two recurrent mutations on syndactyly and outcome of craniofacial surgery. Clin Genet 57:137–139
Wieland I (2011) Craniofrontonasal syndrome: molecular genetics, EFNB1 mutations and the concept of cellular interference. In: Muenke M, Kress W, Collman H, Solomon BD (eds) Monographs in human genetics. Craniosynostoses: molecular genetics, principles of diagnosis and treatment, vol 19. Karger Publishing, Basel, pp 107–118
Wilkie AO, Slaney SF, Oldridge M, Poole MD, Ashworth GJ, Hockley AD, Hayward RD, David DJ, Pulleyn LJ, Rutland P, Malcolm S, Winter RM, Reardon W (1995) Apert syndrome results from localized mutations of FGFR2 and is allelic with Crouzon syndrome. Nat Genet 9:165–172
Wilkie AO, Bochukova EG, Hansen RM, Taylor IB, Rannan-Eliya SV, Byren JC, Wall SA, Ramos L, Venâncio M, Hurst JA, O’Rourke AW, Williams LJ, Seller A, Lester T (2007) Clinical dividends from the molecular genetic diagnosis of craniosynostosis. Am J Med Genet A 143A:1941–1949
Wilkie AO, Byren JC, Hurst JA, Jayamohan J, Johnson D, Knight SJ, Lester T, Richards PG, Twigg SR, Wall SA (2010) Prevalence and complications of single-gene and chromosomal disorders in craniosynostosis. Pediatrics 126:391–400
Yacubian-Fernandes A, Palhares A, Giglio A, Gabarra RC, Zanini S, Portela L, Silva MV, Perosa GB, Abramides D, Plese JP (2005) Apert syndrome: factors involved in the cognitive development. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 63:963–968
Zhou G, Schwartz LT, Gopen Q (2009) Inner ear anomalies and conductive hearing loss in children with Apert syndrome: an overlooked otologic aspect. Otol Neurotol 30:184–189
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Agochukwu, N.B., Solomon, B.D. & Muenke, M. Impact of genetics on the diagnosis and clinical management of syndromic craniosynostoses. Childs Nerv Syst 28, 1447–1463 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1756-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-012-1756-2