Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 173–176 | Cite as

Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis: report of a Norwegian family with radiographic or anamnestic findings differing from the generally accepted classification

  • Niels Lund-Sørensen
  • Tor Erik Gudmundsen
  • Harald Østensen
Articles

Abstract

Objective

Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis is currently divided into two, possibly three subgroups. The present study of a Norwegian family, however, suggests that such a grouping is not generally valid.

Patients and methods

A Norwegian family has been studied over four generations. Information about the two older generations was obtained mainly from hospital files and by interviewing members of the family. Radiographs were obtained from the two younger generations.

Results and conclusion

Of a total 14 family members, nine patients consisting of six women and three men were studied. Within the same family, patients could be classified as belonging to different subgroups of osteopetrosis defined elsewhere, and at least three of them could be classified as belonging to more than one group. The present study suggests that the generally accepted classification of autosomal dominant osteopetrosis should be questioned.

Key words

Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis Classification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albers-Schönberg H. Röntgenbilder einer seltenen Knochenerkrankung. Munch Med Wochenschr 1904; 51: 365.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edeiken J, Dalinka M, Karasick D. Dysplasias. In: Edeiken’s roentgen diagnosis of diseases of bone, 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1990: 1625–1628.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karshner RJ. Osteopetrosis. AJR 1926; 16: 405–419.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shapiro F. Osteopetrosis: current clinical considerations. Clin Orthop 1993; 294: 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersen PE, Bollerslev J. Heterogeneity of autosomal dominant osteopetrosis. Radiology 1987; 164: 223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kovacs CS, Lambert RGW, Lavoie GJ. Centrifugal osteopetrosis: appendicular slcerosis with relative sparing of the vertebrae. Skeletal Radiol 1995; 24: 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bollerslev J, Nielsen HK, Larsen HF, et al. Biochemical evidence of disturbed bone metabolism and calcium homeostasis in two types of autosomal dominant osteopetrosis. Acta Med Scand 1988; 224: 479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bollerslev J, Mosekilde L. Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis. Clin Orthop 1993;294:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grodum E, Gram J, Brixen K, et al. Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis: bone mineral measurement of the entire skeleton of adults in two different subtypes. Bone 1995; 16: 431–434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Tawil T, Stoker DJ. Benign osteopetrosis: a review of 42 cases showing two different patterns. Skeletal Radiol 1993; 22: 587–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Skeletal Society 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Lund-Sørensen
    • 1
  • Tor Erik Gudmundsen
    • 1
  • Harald Østensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBuskerud Central HospitalDrammenNorway

Personalised recommendations