Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:16:49.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Differential diagnosis VI: normal variants

from Section I - Skeletal trauma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2015

Paul K. Kleinman
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Paul K. Kleinman
Affiliation:
Children's Hospital Boston
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The young skeleton manifests a wide variety of developmental variants that may suggest the possibility of traumatic injury on imaging studies. Additionally, normal osseous structures may project radiographically in a manner that spuriously suggests injury, and in the absence of a history of accidental trauma to explain the findings, abuse may be considered (1). To avoid confusion, the radiologist must be familiar with these vagaries and the features that distinguish them from traumatic injury. This chapter focuses on the developmental variants and misleading images encountered in infancy and early childhood that may mimic inflicted injury. The discussion is not all inclusive and the reader is referred to well-known texts for a broader presentation of normal variations of the developing skeleton (2–4).

Physiologic subperiosteal new bone formation

Physiologic subperiosteal new bone formation (SPNBF) has been long recognized as a normal finding in young infants (5, 6). It involves the femur, humerus, and tibia and less commonly the ulna and radius (Figs. 12.1–12.6). Glaser found SPNBF in 47% of full-term infants and 39% of premature infants undergoing sequential radiographs between 1 and 6 months of age (5). Shopfner noted that the subperiosteal new bone initially produced a hazy, mineralized linear density paralleling an underlying normal cortex (6). With time, this layer of new bone becomes more discretely visible, producing a double contour of the cortex as described (5).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Quigley, AJ, Stafrace, S. Skeletal survey normal variants, artefacts and commonly misinterpreted findings not to be confused with non-accidental injury. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44(1):82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keats, TE, Anderson, MW. Atlas of Normal Roentgen Variants That May Simulate Disease, 9th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.Google Scholar
Coley, BD, ed.-in-chief. Caffey’s Pediatric Diagnostic Imaging, 12th edn. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 2013.Google Scholar
Freyschmidt, J, Brossmann, J, Sternberg, A, Wiens, J. Koehler/Zimmer’s Borderlands of Normal and Early Pathological Findings in Skeletal Radiography, 5th edn. New York, NY: Thieme; 2002.Google Scholar
Glaser, K. Double contour, cupping and spurring in roentgenograms of long bones in infants. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1949;61:482–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Shopfner, CE. Periosteal bone growth in normal infants. A preliminary report. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1966;97(1):154–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, DS, Spevak, MR, Kleinman, PK, Nimkin, K, Rayder, SM. Subperiosteal new bone formation in the sudden infant death syndrome. Presented at the 83rd scientific assembly and annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, IL, November 30–December 5, 1997. Radiology. 1997;205:495.Google Scholar
Pergolizzi, R, Oestreich, AE. Child abuse fracture through physiologic periosteal reaction. Pediatr Radiol. 1995;25(7):566–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinman, PK, Marks, SCRelationship of the subperiosteal bone collar to metaphyseal lesions in abused infants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(10):1471–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaCroix, P. Origin of the perichondrial osseous ring. First example of a phenomenon of induction in skeletal development. In LaCroix, P, ed. The Organization of Bones. Philadelphia, PA: Blakiston Co.; 1951, pp. 90–7.Google Scholar
Laval-Jeantet, M, Balmain, N, Juster, M, Bernard, J. Les rapports de la virole perichondrale et du cartilage en croissance normale et pathologique. Ann Radiol. 1968;11:327–35.Google Scholar
Oestreich, AE, Ahmad, BS. The periphysis and its effect on the metaphysis. I. Definition and normal radiographic pattern. Skeletal Radiol. 1992;21(5):283–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranvier, L. Quelques faits relatis au developpement du tissue osseux. Comptes Rend Acad Sci. 1873;77:1105.Google Scholar
Tsai, A, McDonald, AG, Rosenberg, AE, Gupta, R, Kleinman, PK. High-resolution CT with histopathologic correlates of the classic metaphyseal lesion of infant abuse. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44(2):124–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinman, PK, Belanger, PL, Karellas, A, Spevak, MR. Normal metaphyseal radiologic variants not to be confused with findings of infant abuse. AJR. 1991;156(4):781–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinman, PK. Diagnostic Imaging of Child Abuse. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1987.Google Scholar
Kleinman, PK, Sarwar, ZU, Newton, AW, Perez-Rossello, JM, Rebello, G, Herliczek, TW. Metaphyseal fragmentation with physiologic bowing: a finding not to be confused with the classic metaphyseal lesion. AJR. 2009;192(5):1266–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blount, W. Bow leg. Wis Med J. 1941;40:484–7.Google Scholar
Holt, JF, Latourette, HB, Watson, EH. Physiological bowing of the legs in young children. J Am Med Assoc. 1954;154(5):390–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinman, PK, Marks, SCA regional approach to the classic metaphyseal lesion in abused infants: the distal femur. AJR. 1998;170(1):43–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffey, J. Some traumatic lesions in growing bones other than fractures and dislocations: clinical and radiological features. Br J Radiol. 1957;30:225–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, EM. The relationship between Blount’s disease and bow legs. Br J Radiol. 1968;41(482):107–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleinman, PK, Spevak, MR. Variations in acromial ossification simulating infant abuse in victims of sudden infant death syndrome. Radiology. 1991;180(1):185–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simanovsky, N, Hiller, N, Simanovsky, N. Partial duplication of the scapula. Skeletal Radiol. 2006;35(9):696–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currarino, G, Prescott, P. Fractures of the acromion in young children and a description of a variant in acromial ossification which may mimic a fracture. Pediatr Radiol. 1994;24(4):251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAloon, J, O’Neill, C. Ossification centres, not rib fractures. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96(3):284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckle, CE, Udawatta, V, Straus, CM. Now you see it, now you don’t: visual illusions in radiology. Radiographics. 2013;33(7):2087–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liria, J, Carrascal, S, Fernandez-Fairen, M, Malgosa, A, Isidro, A. Case report: floating-clavicle from the 17th century: the oldest case?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(2):622–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brevaut-Malaty, V, Guillaume, JM. Neonatal diagnosis of congenital pseudarthrosis of the clavicle. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(12):1376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currarino, G, Herring, JA. Congenital pseudarthrosis of the clavicle. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(12):1343–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caffey, J, Madell, SH. Ossification of the pubic bones at birth. Radiology. 1956;67(3):346–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez-Rossello, JM, Connolly, SA, Newton, AW, Thomason, M, Jenny, C, Sugar, NF, et al. Pubic ramus radiolucencies in infants: the good, the bad, and the indeterminate. AJR. 2008;190(6):1481–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×