1953
DOI: 10.1136/adc.28.139.209
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Congenital Stippled Epiphyses

Abstract: Caffey (1950) suggested the term 'congenital stippled epiphyses' for a syndrorm consisting of achondroplasia, radiologial evidence of discrete centres of calcification in cartilaginous epiphyses, together with cataracts and mental deficwiency. The condition was first described by Conradi (1914) under the title 'Chondrodystrophia Foetalis Hypoplastica', and was reviewed by Ford, Schneider and Brandon (1951). Below is a case record, presenting some unusual features, with necropsy findings.Case Report A girl, bi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1960
1960
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We obtained literature cases from reports published in English (n = 62). [Lightwood, 1931; Bateman, 1936; Maitland, 1939; Hilliard, 1943; Lund, 1943; Coughlin et al, 1950; Ford et al, 1951; Scott, 1952; Briggs et al, 1953; Fraser and Scriver, 1954; Yakovac, 1954; Cohen et al, 1956; Sheach and Middlemiss, 1956; Armaly, 1957; Phillips, 1957; Brogdon and Crow, 1958; Mosekilde, 1958; van Balen and Santens, 1968; Spranger et al, 1971; Mason and Kozlowski, 1973; Levine et al, 1974; Gilbert et al, 1976; Heselson et al, 1978; Kretzer et al, 1981; Saul and Stevenson, 1982; Connor et al, 1985; Poulos et al, 1988, 1991; Eustis et al, 1990; Gray et al, 1990, 1992; Wardinsky et al, 1990; Castillo‐Taucher et al, 1991; Lenti et al, 1991; Williams et al, 1991; Suzuki et al, 1993; Gendall et al, 1994; Agamanolis and Novak, 1995; Takahashi et al, 1997; Hertzberg et al, 1999; Powers et al, 1999; Steinberg et al, 1999; Khanna et al, 2001]. We excluded certain instances in which review suggested that the proffered diagnosis was implausible or in which documentation was insufficient to confirm that the child did, indeed, have RCP, or in those few instances where the proband likely did not have classical RCP Type I.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We obtained literature cases from reports published in English (n = 62). [Lightwood, 1931; Bateman, 1936; Maitland, 1939; Hilliard, 1943; Lund, 1943; Coughlin et al, 1950; Ford et al, 1951; Scott, 1952; Briggs et al, 1953; Fraser and Scriver, 1954; Yakovac, 1954; Cohen et al, 1956; Sheach and Middlemiss, 1956; Armaly, 1957; Phillips, 1957; Brogdon and Crow, 1958; Mosekilde, 1958; van Balen and Santens, 1968; Spranger et al, 1971; Mason and Kozlowski, 1973; Levine et al, 1974; Gilbert et al, 1976; Heselson et al, 1978; Kretzer et al, 1981; Saul and Stevenson, 1982; Connor et al, 1985; Poulos et al, 1988, 1991; Eustis et al, 1990; Gray et al, 1990, 1992; Wardinsky et al, 1990; Castillo‐Taucher et al, 1991; Lenti et al, 1991; Williams et al, 1991; Suzuki et al, 1993; Gendall et al, 1994; Agamanolis and Novak, 1995; Takahashi et al, 1997; Hertzberg et al, 1999; Powers et al, 1999; Steinberg et al, 1999; Khanna et al, 2001]. We excluded certain instances in which review suggested that the proffered diagnosis was implausible or in which documentation was insufficient to confirm that the child did, indeed, have RCP, or in those few instances where the proband likely did not have classical RCP Type I.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%