Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 211–216 | Cite as

Morphological study of somatic muscles in alimentary-toxic paroxysmal myoglobinuria

  • L. M. Nepomnyashchikh
  • M. A. Bakarev
Morphology and Pathomorphology


The development of acute focal metabolic lesions of somatic muscles is shown in alimentary-toxic paroxysmal myoglobinuria. Two principal universal reactions of striated muscles are traced in the genesis of this pathological process, namely, contracture damage and intracellular myocytolysis. The functional asynchronism and structural-metabolic heterogeneity of muscle fibers are reflected in the stagewise and typical heterogeneity of the morphological picture, which preserves the entire spectrum of stereotypical pathological reactions regardless of the severity of the illness.

Key Words

alimentary-toxic paroxysmal myoglobinuria skeletal muscles metabolic damage electron and polarization microscopy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. P. Avtsyn,An Introduction to Geographic Pathology [in Russian], Moscow (1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu. Z. Berman and A. V. Strusevich,Sartlan Disease: Alimentary-Toxic Paroxysmal Myoglobinuria [in Russian], Novosibirsk (1957).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. D. Komarov and I. I. Shimanko,Positional Tissue Compression [in Russian], Moscow (1984).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. E. Laskin,Gig. San., No 10, 44–49 (1948).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. D. Sidorova, L. M. Nepomnyashchikh, M. F. Valentik,et al., Byull. Sib. Otdel. Ross. Akad. Med. Nauk, No 1, 12–17 (1989).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. L. Sukhinin and I. I. Shimanko, in:Current Topics in Respiration Biochemistry; Clinical Studies [in Russian], Ivanovo (1970), pp. 210–215.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. F. Tsellarius and Yu. G. Tsellarius,Histopathology of Focal Metabolic Damage to Somatic Muscle Fibers [in Russian], Novosibirsk (1979).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. A. Shalaev,Gig. San., No 9, 47–50 (1946).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. P. Shul'tsev,Klin. Med., No 1, 12–18 (1963).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. P. Shul'tsev, V. P. Kesareva, V. B. Kontsevaya,et al., —Ibid.,, No 7, 33–38 (1966).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O. Berger, U. Zifko, K. Jellinger,et al., Nervenarzt.,64, 539–544 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. M. Florkowski, M. L. Rossi, M. P. Carey,et al., J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol.,30, 443–454 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. B. Kahn and J. S. Meyer,Am. J. Clin. Pathol.,53, 516–522 (1970).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. P. Knochel,Am. J. Med.,72, 521–535 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Mantz, C. Hindelang, J. M. Mantz,et al., Virchows Arch. [A],421, 57–64 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. P. Rowland, S. Fahn, E. Hirschberg, and D. H. Harter,Arch. Neurol.,10, 537–562 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Nepomnyashchikh
    • 1
  • M. A. Bakarev
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of General Pathological Anatomy, Research Institute of Regional Pathology and PathomorphologySiberian Division of the Russian Academy of Medical SciencesNovosibirsk

Personalised recommendations