Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bestimmung des Skelettalters

Vergleich der Methoden nach Greulich und Pyle sowie Tanner und Whitehouse

Determination of skeletal age

Comparison of the methods of Greulich and Pyle and Tanner and Whitehouse

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Hauptziel dieser Studie ist es, die Genauigkeit und den Zeitaufwand der Skelettalterbestimmungen (SAB) nach Greulich u. Pyle (GP) sowie Tanner u. Whitehouse (TW) festzustellen, und die täglich praktikable zu bestimmen.

Material und Methode

In die Studie wurden 63 Kinder zwischen 5 und 18 Jahren einbezogen. Alle SAB wurden nach GP und TW anhand von Röntgenbildern der linken Hand im Blindverfahren von 5 bzw. 6 Untersuchern unter Messung der Untersuchungsdauer ausgewertet, diese Prozedur wurde nach 2 Monaten wiederholt.

Ergebnisse

Das mittlere Skelettalter (SA) wurde nach GP leicht zu niedrig eingeschätzt, nach TW zu hoch. Die mittleren Abweichungen zwischen den Ergebnissen von je 2 Untersuchern waren nach GP tendenziell niedriger. Wiederholte SAB durch den gleichen Untersucher wichen nur geringfügig voneinander ab. Die erforderliche Untersuchungszeit nach GP betrug weniger als die Hälfte als nach TW. Eine Steigerung der Genauigkeit der SAB bei der 2. Anwendung konnte nur für die Methode nach GP nachgewiesen werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Keine der beiden hier verwendeten Methoden ist der anderen deutlich überlegen. Im klinischen Alltag ist der Gebrauch der SAB-Methoden nach GP praktikabler.

Abstract

Purpose

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and the time required to determine skeletal age (SA) in healthy children by the methods of Greulich and Pyle (GP) and of Tanner and Whitehouse (TW). Based on these results recommendations for routine clinical practice is to be established.

Materials and methods

In this study a total of 63 children between the ages of 5 and 18 years were included. Each conventional radiographic image of the left hand was assessed under blinded conditions by 5 or 6 examiners and the time needed was recorded. The assessments were repeated after 2 months.

Results

The average chronological age was estimated slightly too low by the GP method and clearly too high by TW. The mean deviation between the results of two examiners tended to be higher with the TW method than with GP. Repeated assessments of SA by the same examiner deviated only slightly for both methods. The time taken to assess the SA by GP was less than half as long as for TW. An improvement in accuracy of SA estimation after repeated use was only observed for GP.

Conclusion

Of the two methods tested neither proved to be superior. Determination of SA by the GP method was found to be more suitable for routine clinical practice.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Abbreviations

SA:

Skelettalter

SAB:

Skelettalterbestimmung

GP:

Greulich u. Pyle

TW:

Tanner u. Whitehouse

Literatur

  1. Albanese A, Hall C, Stanhope R (1995) The use of a computerized method of bone age assessment in clinical practice. Horm Res 44:2–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boioli F, Gattoni F, Tagliaferri B et al (1994) An analysis of a case series of 342 shortstature patients examined by the Tanner-Whitehouse 2 (TW2) method. Radiol Med (Torino) 87:737–740

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bull RK, Edwards PD, Kemp P et al (1999) Bone age assessment: a large scale comparison of the Greulich and Pyle, and Tanner and Whitehouse (TW2) methods. Arch Dis Child 81:172–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cole AJ, Webb L, Cole TJ (1988) Bone age estimation: a comparison of methods. Br J Radiol 61:683–686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fendel H (1976) Die Methodik der radiologischen Skelettalterbestimmung. Radiologe 16:370–380

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Greulich WW, Pyle SI (1959) Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA

  7. Greulich WW (1957) A comparison of the physical growth and development of American-born and native Japanese children. Am J Phys Anthropol 15:489–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Groell R, Lindbichler F, Riepl T et al (1999) The reliability of bone age determination in central European children using the Greulich and Pyle method. Br J Radiol 72:461–464

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. King DG, Steventon DM, O’Sullivan MP et al (1994) Reproducibility of bone ages when performed by radiology registrars: an audit of Tanner and Whitehouse II versus Greulich and Pyle methods. Br J Radiol 67:848–851

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mahmoodi S, Sharif BS, Chester EG et al (2000) Skeletal growth estimation using radiographic image processing and analysis. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 4:292–297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Paley J, Talor J, Levin A et al (2004) The multiplier method for prediction of adult height. J Pediatr Orthop 24:732–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ranke H v. (1896) Sitzungsprotokoll des ärztlichen Vereins München am 1.4.1896, Diskussionsbemerkung zum Vortrag Angerer: „Über die Verwertung der Roentgenschen Strahlen in der Chirurgie“. Munch Med Wochenschr 43:688–689

    Google Scholar 

  13. Roche AF, Davila GH, Eyman SL (1971) A comparison between Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse assessments of skeletal maturity. Radiology 98:273–280

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sachs L (2002) Angewandte Statistik, 10. Aufl. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  15. Schmeling MA (2003) Forensische Altersdiagnostik bei Lebenden im Strafverfahren. Habilitationsschrift. Medizinische Fakultät der Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin

  16. Tanner JM, Oshman D, Lindgren G et al (1994) Reliability and validity of computer-assisted estimates of Tanner-Whitehouse skeletal maturity (CASAS): comparison with the manual method. Horm Res 42:288–294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Healy MJR (1962) A new system for estimating skeletal maturity from the hand and wrist, with standard derived from a study of 2600 healthy British children. The scoring system. Int Child Centre, Paris

  18. Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Marshall WA et al (1975) Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW2 method). Academic Press, London

  19. Todd TW (1937) Atlas of skeletal maturation. Part I: Hand. Mosby, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  20. Van Rijn RR, Lequin MH, Robben SG et al (2001) Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas still valid for Dutch Caucasian children today? Pediatr Radiol 31:748–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Die korrespondierende Autorin gibt für sich und ihre Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Kinderorthopädie, Deformitätenrekonstruktion und Fußchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Deutschland

    M.J. Horter, S. Wacker, B. Vogt, R. Roedl & F. Schiedel

  2. Abteilung für Inneren Medizin, Franziskus-Hospital Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Deutschland

    S. Friesen

  3. Orthopädische Klinik Volmarstein , Wetter/Ruhr, Deutschland

    B. Leidiger

Authors
  1. M.J. Horter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Friesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Wacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Vogt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. B. Leidiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Roedl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. F. Schiedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M.J. Horter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horter, M., Friesen, S., Wacker, S. et al. Bestimmung des Skelettalters. Orthopäde 41, 966–976 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-012-1983-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-012-1983-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation