The Diagnosis

mrt

Every per­son affec­ted can tell you a thing or two about it. Fin­ding a doc­tor who takes the sym­ptoms descri­bed serious­ly is just as arduous as the path to a (poten­ti­al) dia­gno­sis. When tho­se affec­ted look back, many things some­ti­mes beco­me clea­rer and they wish that someone had come up with the idea of taking a look out­side the pige­on­ho­les soo­ner.

Neu­ro­lo­gi­cal dise­a­ses in par­ti­cu­lar are very diver­se, so it is per­fect­ly okay if the usu­al suspects are che­cked out first. It’s just a shame if it’s left at that. In my case, for exam­p­le, MS and Lyme dise­a­se were first suspec­ted and ruled out by various tests. The neu­ro­lo­gist did see that some mus­cles were atro­phied and some ner­ves were bare­ly regis­tering, but he did­n’t find that to be par­ti­cu­lar­ly noti­ceable. Neu­ro­lo­gist No. 1 wan­ted to lea­ve it at that and exami­ne me again after half a year.

Becau­se of a sur­gi­cal pro­blem (delay­ed wound heal­ing) I was mean­while in ano­ther doc­tor’s office. The trea­ting sur­ge­on direct­ly suspec­ted a spe­ci­fic poly­neu­ro­pa­thy. With this I went to Neu­ro­lo­gist No. 2, who did simi­lar exami­na­ti­ons and was again sur­pri­sed that cer­tain ner­ves in the leg did not give any feed­back and he also dis­co­ver­ed atro­phied mus­cles. But Neu­ro­lo­gist No. 2 did­n’t find that worri­so­me eit­her.

Becau­se of an addi­tio­nal blad­der pro­blem I went to the uro­lo­gist. After seve­ral appoint­ments and exami­na­ti­ons, he dia­gno­sed a neu­ro­ge­nic blad­der, which could pos­si­bly be rela­ted to the neu­ro­lo­gi­cal dise­a­se. With his refer­ral, I then went to Neuro­lo­gist No. 3, who final­ly took my com­plaints serious­ly. She had noted a fail­ure of various refle­xes and also the delay­ed ner­ve con­duc­tion velo­ci­ties.

It was here that her­edi­ta­ry sen­so­ri­mo­tor neu­ro­pa­thy was first suspec­ted. In Ger­ma­ny more com­mon is the abbre­via­ted form HMSN or more com­mon­ly in Eng­lish CMT (Char­cot-Marie-Tooth).

This sus­pi­ci­on was now to be con­firm­ed. First in a human gene­tics labo­ra­to­ry, whe­re Panel 1 and later Panel 2 were tes­ted. This means that a num­ber of genes known to trig­ger the dise­a­se are exami­ned. Unfort­u­na­te­ly, neither stu­dy shed any light on the dise­a­se. But that does not rule out the pos­si­bi­li­ty that it is not. Due to the fact that it is a rare dise­a­se, the­re are also not many doc­tors and rese­ar­chers stu­dy­ing it.

Only 70% of tho­se suf­fe­ring from CMT can be iden­ti­fied by the first gene­tic test. Of the remai­ning 30%, human gene­ti­cists only find it in 20%-40%. The search now beco­mes much more dif­fi­cult, becau­se the later CMT mani­fests its­elf in the affec­ted per­son, the poorer the hit rate. At the same time, the num­ber of gene muta­ti­ons is so lar­ge even in a healt­hy per­son that the effort to find exact­ly the gene defect respon­si­ble for the dise­a­se in the affec­ted per­son is extre­me­ly high.

In the end, this means that the­re are still some affec­ted peo­p­le who have to live with the suspec­ted dia­gno­sis. Very hel­pful is my neu­ro­lo­gist, who not only cer­ti­fies the suspec­ted dia­gno­sis, but also the con­se­quen­ces of the poly­neu­ro­pa­thy as tetrapa­re­sis. This dia­gno­sis has been and con­ti­nues to be very hel­pful in offi­ci­a­ting.

Recent fin­dings rela­ted to CMT:

  • Auto­no­mic ner­ves may also be affec­ted, which may explain tro­phic dis­tur­ban­ces.
  • Balan­ce dis­or­ders are com­mon
  • Blad­der weak­ne­ss can also be asso­cia­ted with CMT (this has always been ruled out in the past)
  • CMT is often only part of ano­ther dise­a­se, which can fur­ther com­pli­ca­te the dia­gno­sis
  • A high CK level is not uncom­mon in affec­ted indi­vi­du­als and should be con­side­red a con­se­quence rather than a cau­se.
  • Many con­co­mi­tant sym­ptoms of CMT are still unex­plai­ned, such as the hol­low foot that occurs in many affec­ted indi­vi­du­als.

Ano­ther human gene­tic test can be that all clo­se rela­ti­ves (who are also affec­ted) get tog­e­ther for a pool test. This invol­ves com­pa­ring ever­yo­ne’s genes to see if a gene­tic defect is not seen in all of them. This nar­rows down the pos­si­ble suspects.

Howe­ver, the final dia­gno­sis remains dif­fi­cult, main­ly becau­se not all other dise­a­ses can be ruled out. Unfort­u­na­te­ly, even in spe­cial mus­cle cen­ters, the inte­rest of phy­si­ci­ans to con­ti­nue on the path of dia­gno­sis is noti­ce­ab­ly decre­asing. As a pati­ent, you are then at the mer­cy of the doc­tors, becau­se at some point the­re are no more cont­act points that you can go to for fur­ther help. It is the­r­e­fo­re all the more important that at least the fami­ly doc­tor, neu­ro­lo­gist and, if neces­sa­ry, ortho­pe­dist stand by the pati­ent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *