Management of Thrombocytopenia-Absent Radius (TAR) Syndrome

Thrombocytopenia-absent radius (TAR) syndrome is defined by bilateral absence of the radius and hypomegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (<150,000/mm). Lower extremity and nonorthopaedic anomalies also are frequently present. Charts and radiographs of 23 patients with TAR syndrome were reviewed, with...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of pediatric orthopaedics Vol. 19; no. 3; pp. 289 - 296
Main Authors:	McLaurin, Toni M, Bukrey, Charles D, Lovett, Raymond J, Mochel, David M
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Hagerstown, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc 01-05-1999 Lippincott
Subjects:	Biological and medical sciences Child, Preschool Diseases of the osteoarticular system. Orthopedic treatment Female Humans Male Medical sciences Orthotic Devices Prostheses and Implants Radiography Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) Radius - abnormalities Radius - diagnostic imaging Retrospective Studies Self-Help Devices Syndrome Thrombocytopenia - therapy Human Thrombocytopenia Radius Prognosis Removable prosthesis Orthopedic treatment Diseases of the osteoarticular system Instrumentation Bilateral Infant Hemopathy Genetic disease Platelet Association Treatment Malformation Limb Upper limb Technique Child
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Thrombocytopenia-absent radius (TAR) syndrome is defined by bilateral absence of the radius and hypomegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (<150,000/mm). Lower extremity and nonorthopaedic anomalies also are frequently present. Charts and radiographs of 23 patients with TAR syndrome were reviewed, with extremity and other anomalies documented. Upper and lower extremity management, which included surgery and multiple attempts at orthotic and prosthetic fitting, was evaluated. Upper extremity prostheses were generally rejected, as most patients were able to perform tasks by approximating themselves closely enough to an object to use their own hands. Adaptive devices for feeding, dressing, and toileting were well tolerated. In the lower extremity, most affected patients either rejected any lower extremity intervention or had involvement that eventually precluded functional ambulation, necessitating power wheelchair or motorized cart use. The greatest degree of independence for these patients comes not from surgical, prosthetic, or orthotic intervention, but from the use of simple adaptive devices and powered mobility aids if required.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	0271-6798 1539-2570
DOI:	10.1097/01241398-199905000-00003