Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Skeletal survey normal variants, artefacts and commonly misinterpreted findings not to be confused with non-accidental injury

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Radiology plays a key part in the investigation of non-accidental injury. Many normal variants and artefacts can simulate an abnormality associated with non-accidental injury. It is essential that radiologists reporting skeletal surveys in cases of suspected child abuse are aware of these. We present a pictorial essay to aid the reporting radiologist in the differentiation between normal variants or artefacts and true traumatic injury. We show plain film examples of potential pitfalls throughout the body.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Radford L, Corral S, Bradley C et al (2011) Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/findings/child_abuse_neglect_research_PDF_wdf84181.pdf (Accessed 18 May 2013)

  2. Royal College of Radiologists (2008) Standards for radiological investigations of suspected non-accidental injury. http://www.rcr.ac.uk/docs/radiology/pdf/RCPCH_RCR_final.pdf (Accessed 18 May 2013)

  3. Offiah A, van Rijn RR, Perez-Rosello JM et al (2009) Skeletal imaging of child abuse (non-accidental injury). Pediatr Radiol 39:461–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sanchez T, Stewart D, Walvick M et al (2010) Skull fracture vs. accessory sutures: how can we tell the difference? Emerg Radiol 17:413–418

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nakahara K, Utsuki S, Shimizu S et al (2006) Age dependence of fusion of primary occipital sutures: a radiographic study. Childs Nerv Syst 22:1457–1459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller AJ, Kim U, Carrasco E (2010) Differentiating a mendosal suture from a skull fracture. J Pediatr 157:691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Caffey J (1978) Pediatric x-ray diagnosis, vol 1, 7th edn. Year Book Medical Publishing, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nayak SR, Krishnamurthy A, Madhan Kumar SJ et al (2007) The mendosal suture of the occipital bone: occurrence in Indian population, embryology and clinical significance. Surg Radiol Anat 29:329–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vu HL, Panchal J, Parker E et al (2001) The timing of physiologic closure of the metopic suture: a review of 159 patients using reconstructed 3D CT scans of the craniofacial region. J Craniofac Surg 12:527–532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mathijissen IM, Vaadrager JM, can der Meulen JC et al (1996) The role of bone centers in the pathogenesis of craniosynostosis: an embryologic approach using CT measurements in an isolated craniosynostosis and Apert and Crouzon syndromes. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bademci G, Kendi T, Agalar F (2007) Persistent metopic suture can mimic the skull fractures in the emergency setting? Neurocirugia 18:238–240

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matsumura G, Uchiumi T, Kida K et al (1993) Developmental studies on the interparietal part of the human occipital squama. J Anat 182:197–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hanihara T, Ishida H (2001) Os incae: variation in frequency in major human population groups. J Anat 198:137–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marti B, Sirinelli D, Maurin L et al (2013) Wormian bones in a general paediatric population. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:428–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sanchez-Lara PA, Graham JM Jr, Hing AV et al (2007) The morphogenesis of wormian bones: a study of craniosynostosis and purposeful cranial deformation. Am J Med Genet A 143:3243–3251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cremin B, Goodman H, Spranger J et al (1982) Wormian bones in osteogenesis imperfecta and other disorders. Skelet Radiol 8:35–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Glass RB, Fernbach SK, Norton KI et al (2004) The infant skull: a vault of information. Radiographics 24:507–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johanson RB, Menon BK (2000) Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2, CD000224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khanna G, El-Khoury GY (2007) Imaging of cervical spine injuries of childhood. Skelet Radiol 36:477–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hill SA, Miller CA, Kosnik EJ et al (1984) Pediatric neck injuries. A clinical study. J Neurosurg 60:700–706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Swischuk LE (1969) Spine and spinal cord trauma in the battered child syndrome. Radiology 92:733–738

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rooks VJ, Sisler C, Burton B (1998) Cervical spine injury in child abuse: report of two cases. Pediatr Radiol 28:193–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown RL, Brunn MA, Garcia VF (2001) Cervical spine injuries in children: a review of 103 patients treated consecutively at a level 1 pediatric trauma center. J Pediatr Surg 36:1107–1114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lustrin ES, Karakas SP, Ortiz AO et al (2003) Pediatric cervical spine: normal anatomy, variants, and trauma. Radiographics 23:539–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ogden JA (1984) Radiology of postnatal skeletal development. XII. The second cervical vertebra. Skelet Radiol 12:169–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Swischuk LE, Swischuk PN, John SD (1993) Wedging of C-3 in infants and children: usually a normal finding and not a fracture. Radiology 188:523–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cattell HS, Filtzer DL (1965) Pseudosubluxation and other normal variations in the cervical spine in children. A study of 160 children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 47:1295–1309

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swischuk LE (1977) Anterior displacement of C2 in children: physiologic or pathologic. Radiology 122:759–763

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Freyschmidt J, Brossmann J, Wiens J et al (2003) Borderlands of normal and early pathological findings in skeletal radiography, 5th edn. Thieme, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kwon DS, Spevak MR, Fletcher K et al (2002) Physiologic subperiosteal new bone formation: prevalence, distribution, and thickness in neonates and infants. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:985–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rana RS, Wu JS, Eisenberg RL (2009) Periosteal reaction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:W259–W272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kleinman PK, Marks SC Jr, Richmond JM et al (1995) Inflicted skeletal injury: a postmortem radiologic-histopathologic study in 31 infants. AJR Am J Roentgenol 165:647–650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kleinman PK (2008) Problems in the diagnosis of metaphyseal fractures. Pediatr Radiol 38:S388–S394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kleinman PK, Marks SC Jr (1996) A regional approach to the classic metaphyseal lesion in abused infants: the proximal tibia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:421–426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kleinman PK, Marks SC Jr (1996) A regional approach to classic metaphyseal lesion in abused infants: the distal tibia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1207–1212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kleinman PK, Marks SC Jr (1996) A regional approach to the classic metaphyseal lesion in abused infants: the proximal humerus. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1399–1403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kleinman PK, Belanger PL, Karellas A et al (1991) Normal metaphyseal radiologic variants not to be confused with findings of infant abuse. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156:781–783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sty JR, Starshak RJ (1983) The role of bone scintigraphy in the evaluation of the suspected abused child. Radiology 146:369–375

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Oestreich AE, Ahmad BS (1992) The periphysis and its effect on the metaphysis: I. Definition and normal radiographic pattern. Skelet Radiol 21:283–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Glaser K (1949) Double contour, cupping and spurring in roentgenograms of long bones in infants. AJR Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther 61:482–492

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dwek JR (2011) The radiographic approach to child abuse. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:776–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Slovis T, Chapman S (2008) Evaluating the data concerning vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency and child abuse. Pediatr Radiol 38:1221–1224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kleinman PK, Sarwar ZU, Newton AW et al (2009) Metaphyseal fragmentation with physiologic bowing: a finding not to be confused with the classic metaphyseal lesion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1266–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Williams H (2008) Normal anatomical variants and other mimics of skeletal trauma. In: Johnson KJ, Bache E (eds) Imaging in pediatric skeletal trauma. Springer, Berlin, pp 91–118

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Keats TE, Anderson MW (2012) Atlas of normal roentgen variants that may simulate disease, 9th edn. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. In-Patient Radiology Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, UK

    Alan J. Quigley

  2. Radiology Department, Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK

    Samuel Stafrace

Authors
  1. Alan J. Quigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel Stafrace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan J. Quigley.

Additional information

CME activity

This article has been selected as the CME activity for the current month. Please visit the SPR Web site at www.pedrad.org on the Education page and follow the instructions to complete this CME activity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quigley, A.J., Stafrace, S. Skeletal survey normal variants, artefacts and commonly misinterpreted findings not to be confused with non-accidental injury. Pediatr Radiol 44, 82–93 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2802-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2802-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation