2021
DOI: 10.1097/pas.0000000000001670
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Congenital Myenteric Hypoganglionosis

Abstract: Congenital myenteric hypoganglionosis is a rare developmental disorder characterized clinically by severe and persistent neonatal intestinal pseudoobstruction. The diagnosis is established by the prevalence of small myenteric ganglia composed of closely spaced ganglion cells with sparse surrounding neuropil. In practice, the diagnosis entails familiarity with the normal appearance of myenteric ganglia in young infants and the ability to confidently recognize significant deviations in ganglion size and morpholo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(68 reference statements)
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous reports have described mean values of the number of myenteric ganglion cells evaluated using HuC/HuD-immunostained sections in IHG cases as 23.3 and 30.1 ganglion cells per cm. 1,9 Our cutoff value of ≤ 18.7/cm was smaller than the abovementioned values and was considered reasonable as an abnormal decrease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Previous reports have described mean values of the number of myenteric ganglion cells evaluated using HuC/HuD-immunostained sections in IHG cases as 23.3 and 30.1 ganglion cells per cm. 1,9 Our cutoff value of ≤ 18.7/cm was smaller than the abovementioned values and was considered reasonable as an abnormal decrease.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…However, IHG is a rare disease, and only 3 studies, including the present one, have collected information from > 10 IHG cases. 1,9 Therefore, data from more IHG cases across multiple institutions are required for further validation. Second, an observer bias may have occurred in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations