You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Rare disease
CASE REPORT
‘Mutiny on the crown’: two cases of rare cephalic malformations
  1. Kashish Khanna,
  2. Minu Bajpai,
  3. Alisha Gupta,
  4. Prabudh Goel
  1. Pediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  1. Correspondence to Professor Minu Bajpai, bajpai2b{at}gmail.com

Summary

The presentation and management of two bizarre congenital cephalic curiosities at the two extremes of the clinical spectrum are discussed herewith. Case 1: presented to us as a neonate with a scalp swelling mirror-imaging her head and face. The journey from clinics to wards and to the operation theatre and to her home is introspected. Case 2: presented to us as dicephalous dibrachius dipus parapagus conjoined twins. The detailed work-up of individual organ systems, the multidisciplinary approach to management and the final outcome are discussed. This is an unsolved mystery for the anatomists, paediatric surgeons, radiologists and the medical fraternity at large.

  • congenital disorders
  • head and neck surgery
  • paediatric surgery
  • paediatric oncology

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2017-222107

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both the cases reported have been managed under the care of MB. MB and KK have assisted during the management of the conjoint twins. PG and AG along with MB have been involved in the management and flow-up of the scalp teratoma case. KK has drafted and prepared the manuscript. MB, PG and AG have substantially contributed to the editing and revision of the report. MB has agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Guardian consent obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.