Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Paediatric

A simple method for bone age assessment: the capitohamate planimetry

Authors: Jung-Ah Choi, Young Chul Kim, Seon Jeong Min, Eun Kyung Khil

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine if the capitohamate (CH) planimetry could be a reliable indicator of bone age, and to compare it with Greulich-Pyle (GP) method.

Methods

This retrospective study included 391 children (age, 1–180 months). Two reviewers manually measured the areas of the capitate and hamate on plain radiographs. CH planimetry was defined as the measurement of the sum of areas of the capitate and hamate. Two reviewers independently applied the CH planimetry and GP methods in 109 children whose heights were at the 50th percentile of the growth chart.

Results

There was a strong positive correlation between chronological age and CH planimetry measurement (right, r = 0.9702; left, r = 0.9709). There was no significant difference in accuracy between CH planimetry (84.39–84.46 %) and the GP method (85.15–87.66 %) (p ≥ 0.0867). The interobserver reproducibility of CH planimetry (precision, 4.42 %; 95 % limits of agreement [LOA], −10.5 to 13.4 months) was greater than that of the GP method (precision, 8.45 %; LOA, −29.5 to 21.1 months).

Conclusions

CH planimetry may be a reliable method for bone age assessment.

Key Points

• Bone age assessment is important in the work-up of paediatric endocrine disorders.
• Radiography of the left hand is widely used to estimate bone age.
• Capitatohamate planimetry is a reliable and reproducible method for assessing bone age.
Literature
1.
Sharma S, Mishra V, Kulshreshtha V (2014) Radiographical study showing asymmetry in the surface area of carpal bones in malnourished children. J Clin Diagn Res 8:AC08–AC10PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Cameriere R, De Luca S, Biagi R, Cingolani M, Farronato G, Ferrante L (2012) Accuracy of three age estimation methods in children by measurements of developing teeth and carpals and epiphyses of the ulna and radius. J Forensic Sci 57:1263–1270CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Pietka E, Gertych A, Pospiech S, Cao F, Huang HK, Gilsanz V (2001) Computer-assisted bone age assessment: image preprocessing and epiphyseal/metaphyseal ROI extraction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:715–729CrossRefPubMed
5.
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 67:848–851CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Bull RK, Edwards PD, Kemp PM, Fry S, Hughes IA (1999) Bone age assessment: a large scale comparison of the Greulich and Pyle, and Tanner and Whitehouse (TW2) methods. Arch Dis Child 81:172–173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Bilgili Y, Hizel S, Kara SA, Sanli C, Erdal HH, Altinok D (2003) Accuracy of skeletal age assessment in children from birth to 6 years of age with the ultrasonographic version of the Greulich-Pyle atlas. J Ultrasound Med 22:683–690CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zhang A, Gertych A, Liu BJ (2007) Automatic bone age assessment for young children from newborn to 7-year-old using carpal bones. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:299–310CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Ontell FK, Ivanovic M, Ablin DS, Barlow TW (1996) Bone age in children of diverse ethnicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1395–1398CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ryoo NY, Shin HY, Kim JH, Moon JS, Lee CG (2015) Change in the height of Korean children and adolescents: analysis from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Survey II and V. Korean J Pediatr 58:336–340CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Thodberg HH, Jenni OG, Ranke MB, Martin DD (2012) Standardization of the Tanner-Whitehouse bone age method in the context of automated image analysis. Ann Hum Biol 39:68–75CrossRefPubMed
13.
Schreibman KL, Freeland A, Gilula LA, Yin Y (1997) Imaging of the hand and wrist. Orthop Clin North Am 28:537–582CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kim YC, Lim JS, Keum KC et al (2011) Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI and MR volumetry in the evaluation of early treatment outcomes after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:570–576CrossRefPubMed
15.
Patterson RM, Elder KW, Viegas SF, Buford WL (1995) Carpal bone anatomy measured by computer analysis of three-dimensional reconstructions of computed tomography images. J Hand Surg Am 20:923–929CrossRefPubMed
16.
Daneff M, Casalis C, Bruno CH, Bruno DA (2015) Bone age assessment with conventional ultrasonography in healthy infants from 1 to 24 months of age. Pediatr Radiol 45:1007–1015CrossRefPubMed
17.
Canovas F, Banegas F, Cyteval C et al (2000) Carpal bone maturation assessment by image analysis from computed tomography scans. Horm Res 54:6–13CrossRefPubMed
18.
Roche AF, Davila GH, Eyman SL (1971) A comparison between Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse assessments of skeletal maturity. Radiology 98:273–280CrossRefPubMed
19.
Andersen E (1971) Comparison of Tanner-Whitehouse and Greulich-Pyle methods in a large scale Danish Survey. Am J Phys Anthropol 35:373–376CrossRefPubMed
20.
Anderson M (1971) Use of the Greulich-Pyle "Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Hand and Wrist" in a clinical context. Am J Phys Anthropol 35:347–352CrossRefPubMed
21.
Braude S, Henning L, Lambert M (2007) Accuracy of bone assessments for verifying age in adolescents-application in sport. SA Journal of Radiology 11:4–7
22.
Chang HF, Wu KM, Chen KC (1990) A cross-sectional study on the skeletal development of the hand and wrist from preadolescence to early adulthood among Chinese in Taiwan. Zhonghua Ya Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi 9:1–11PubMed
23.
24.
Kim JR, Lee YS, Yu J (2015) Assessment of bone age in prepubertal healthy Korean children: comparison among the Korean standard bone age chart, Greulich-Pyle method, and Tanner-Whitehouse method. Korean J Radiol 16:201–205CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Khan KM, Gonzalez-Bolanos MT, Holm T, Miller BS, Sarafoglou K (2015) Use of Automated Bone Age for Critical Growth Assessment. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 54:1038–1043CrossRef
26.
Mansourvar M, Ismail MA, Herawan T, Raj RG, Kareem SA, Nasaruddin FH (2013) Automated bone age assessment: motivation, taxonomies, and challenges. Comput Math Methods Med 2013:391626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Spampinato C, Palazzo S, Giordano D, Aldinucci M, Leonardi R (2017) Deep learning for automated skeletal bone age assessment in x-ray images. Med Image Anal 36:41–51CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bulut E, Sahin B, Muglali M, Bekcioglu B (2012) Comparison of the planimetry and point-counting methods for the assessment of the size of the mandible cysts on orthopantomograms. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17:e442–e446CrossRefPubMed
29.
van Rijn RR, Thodberg HH (2013) Bone age assessment: automated techniques coming of age? Acta Radiol 54:1024–1029CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bunch PM, Altes TA, McIlhenny J, Patrie J, Gaskin CM (2017) Skeletal development of the hand and wrist: digital bone age companion-a suitable alternative to the Greulich and Pyle atlas for bone age assessment? Skeletal Radiol 46:785–793CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Pietka E, Pospiech-Kurkowska S, Gertych A, Cao F (2003) Integration of computer assisted bone age assessment with clinical PACS. Comput Med Imaging Graph 27:217–228CrossRefPubMed
32.
Franken M, Grimm B, Heyligers I (2010) A comparison of four systems for calibration when templating for total hip replacement with digital radiography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:136–141CrossRefPubMed
33.
Wimsey S, Pickard R, Shaw G (2006) Accurate scaling of digital radiographs of the pelvis. A prospective trial of two methods. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1508–1512CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A simple method for bone age assessment: the capitohamate planimetry
Authors
Jung-Ah Choi
Young Chul Kim
Seon Jeong Min
Eun Kyung Khil
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5255-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

European Radiology 6/2018 Go to the issue

Interventional

Feasibility study of MR-guided transgluteal targeted in-bore biopsy for suspicious lesions of the prostate at 3 Tesla using a freehand approach

Gastrointestinal

Added value of ancillary imaging features for differentiating scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging

Oncology

Fat necrosis after abdominal surgery: A pitfall in interpretation of FDG-PET/CT

Magnetic Resonance

Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) MRI for differentiation of benign and malignant vertebral lesions

Oncology

The prognostic and predictive value of vascular response parameters measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced-CT, -MRI and -US in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving sunitinib

Magnetic Resonance

MR neurography in traumatic, non-obstetric paediatric brachial plexopathy