0
Articles   |    
Function of the Upper Extremities in Hereditary Multiple Exostoses*
ROBERT P. STANTON, M.D.†; MARK O. HANSEN, M.D.‡, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Alfred I. duPont Institute, Wilmington
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  1996; 78:568-73 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

The radiographic anatomy, functional status, and impairment ratings of twenty-eight patients (fifty-six extremities) who had hereditary multiple exostoses were evaluated. The patient (or the parent) also subjectively graded the function of each extremity with use of a standard rating-assessment tool. Degenerative joint disease was evident in three (5 per cent) of the fifty-six extremities at the time of follow-up, when the patients were an average of twenty-one years old. With use of the hand test of Jebsen et al., the average score was in the forty-seventh percentile for the dominant extremity and in the twenty-eighth percentile for the non-dominant extremity. Loss of pronation and supination increased with increasing age. Dislocation of the radial head was significantly associated with negative ulnar variance (p = 0.008) and with the impairment rating (p = 0.001), but not with the subjective score or with the performance on the hand test of Jebsen et al. So-called whole-person impairment ratings ranged from 0 to 17 per cent (average, 5 per cent). It has been our experience that deformities of the upper extremity in patients who have hereditary multiple exostoses are well tolerated and lead to little loss of function as measured both subjectively and objectively.

Figures in this Article
    Hereditary multiple exostoses is a rare skeletal dysplasia in which multiple osteocartilaginous projections from the bones result in characteristic patterns of shortening and angular deformity of the extremities12. Although it is rare, an osteocartilaginous projection may degenerate into a sarcoma. The lesions, which are commonly termed osteochondromas, are more accurately classified as a skeletal dysplasia. Hereditary multiple exostoses is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern, with variability in the phenotypic expression even within one family.
    Solomon15 reported that hereditary multiple exostoses in a family was first described in 1814 by Boyer. However, a definitive description of the clinical and histological manifestations of the condition did not appear until 1943, when Jaffe described the details of the relationship of the osteocartilaginous growths to the underlying bone and the normal physis. In 1961, in the first of two classic reports on the condition, Solomon used detailed measurements of the body and extensive radiographic study to characterize the retardation of osseous growth, the characteristic deformities of the upper and lower extremities, and the migration and disappearance of exostoses14. In the second report, published in 1963, he described the histological architecture of the typical sessile-type osteocartilaginous projection that results in a broad-based club-like appearance of the typical long bone15. Solomon confirmed a relationship between the faster-growing end of a long bone and the likelihood that it would be the site of involvement. In addition, deformity and shortening were generally positively associated with a physis that had a small cross-sectional area. For example, the greatest deformity and shortening were noted in the ulna, the long bone with the smallest physis15. Solomon's observations on the function of individuals who have this condition were brief, however. He stated only that "the natural course of the disease after the cessation of growth is unremarkable and there is little disturbance of health or functional activity in the usual case."15
    The operative treatment of deformities of the upper extremity in patients who have hereditary multiple exostoses has been described in numerous reports8,10,11. The improvement or preservation of function has been consistently invoked as the justification for operative intervention. Although there seems to be little disagreement that the cosmetic appearance of the forearm can be improved with operative intervention, there is little information concerning the function of the forearm either before or after the operation. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate a series of patients who had hereditary multiple exostoses to determine their actual level of function. In addition, data from radiographic measurements of the altered anatomy and demographic data were analyzed in relation to the functional assessment.

    *No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. Funds were received in total or partial support of the research or clinical study presented in this article. The funding source was The Nemours Research Foundation.

    †Alfred I. duPont Institute, P.O. Box 269, Wilmington, Delaware 19899.

    ‡Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort Benning, Georgia 31905.

    *No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. Funds were received in total or partial support of the research or clinical study presented in this article. The funding source was The Nemours Research Foundation.
    †Alfred I. duPont Institute, P.O. Box 269, Wilmington, Delaware 19899.
    ‡Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort Benning, Georgia 31905.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump  TABLE I FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT BY THE PATIENT
    *The total subjective score is derived by adding the scores for both sides.
        Left Hand*Please check the one box that most closely describes the current condition of your hand Left and wrist. Check one box for the left hand Hand* and one for the right.  Right Hand*
        5I have no limitations of my activities and no pain.5
        4I have no pain. I have some limitation of my activities but have not had to change my life (sports activities or job) because of it.4
        3I have no pain. I have had to change or limit my job or give up certain sports activities because of the condition of my hand.3
        2I have pain in my hand, wrist, or elbow, but I have no limitations because of it.2
        1I have pain in my hand, wrist, or elbow, which limits my activities.1
        0  I have pain for which I take medication.0
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump  TABLE II RESULTS ACCORDING TO AGE*
    *The values are averages.†As determined with at t test. NS = not significant.‡0 = normal, 1 = subluxated, and 2 = dislocated.
    Patients Who Were Ten Years Old or Less (N = 6)Patients Who Were More Than Ten Years Old (N = 2)      Significance†
    Dorsiflexion of the wrist (degrees)7769NS
    Volar flexion of the wrist (degress)8075NS
    Radial deviation of the wrist (degrees)2010NS
    Pronation (degrees)87660.001
    Supination (degrees)90840.001
    Radial inclination (degrees)2537NS
    Ulnar variance (mm)-7.3-10.2NS
    Subjective score (point)9.78.10.001
    Status of the radial head‡0.080.230.03
    Impairment rating2(per cent))2.35.10.005
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump  TABLE III RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESULTS AND THE STATUS OF THE RADIAL HEAD
    *As determined with the Pearson correlation coefficient. NS = not significant.
    CharacteristicsLevel of Significance*
    Radial deviation of the wrist0.001
    Ulnar deviation of the wrist0.009
    Pronation0.001
    Extension of the elbow0.04
    Radial inclination0.005
    Negative ulnar variance0.008
    Impairment rating20.001
    Age of the patient  NS
    Sex of the patient  NS
    Dorsiflexion of the wrist  NS
    Volar flexion of the wrist  NS
    Supination  NS
    Flexion of the elbow  NS
    Hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16  NS
    Grip strength  NS
    Subjective score  NS
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Chart showing the distribution of the extremities according to the ages of the patients.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Drawing illustrating the method used to measure the angle (A) of radial inclination.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Drawing showing the method used to measure ulnar variance, which is the difference between the lengths of the radius and ulna (arrows), in both mature and nearly mature children. (Adapted, with permission, from: Hafner, R.; Poznanski, A. K.; and Donovan, J. M.: Ulnar variance in children—standard measurements for evaluation of ulnar shortening in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hereditary multiple exostosis and other bone or joint disorders in childhood. Skel. Radiol., 18: 514, 1989).
    We attempted to contact all of the patients who were listed in the outpatient files at our institution with a recorded diagnosis of hereditary multiple exostoses. Information was available for twenty-eight patients (fifty-six extremities), and they were asked to return for a complete evaluation. Twelve patients were female and sixteen were male. The ages of the patients at the time of the evaluation ranged from five to fifty years (average, twenty-one years) (Fig. 1). A detailed history was recorded, and a general physical examination was performed with specific attention to the upper extremities. The range of motion of the upper extremities (dorsiflexion and volar extension of the wrist and of the elbow, radial and ulnar deviation of the wrist, and pronation and supination of the forearm) was measured with use of a goniometer.
    Radiographs were made of the upper extremity, and the radial inclination (the angle between a line drawn perpendicular to the axis of the radius and the articular orientation of the distal aspect of the radius) was measured on the anteroposterior radiograph (Fig. 2). We attempted to measure radial tilt (the volar inclination of the radial articular surface with respect to the long axis of the radius) on the lateral radiographs. However, due to the severe distortion of the osseous landmarks, reproducible measurements were not possible. Ulnar variance (the difference between the lengths of the radius and ulna on an anteroposterior radiograph of the wrist) was measured with use of the method of Hafner et al. (Fig. 3). This method allows meaningful measurements despite severe alteration of the contour of the distal aspect of the ulna and radius. Radiographic evidence of degeneration of the joints was evaluated as being either present or absent. If evidence of narrowing of the joint space, sclerosis of adjacent subchondral bone, or osteophytes was noted, the joint was classified as degenerative. The articulation between the radial head and the capitellum was graded as entirely normal, subluxated (when more than 25 per cent but less than 50 per cent of the articular surface was not in contact with the capitellum), or dislocated (when more than 50 per cent of the articular surface was not in contact with the capitellum).
    Each patient (or, if appropriate, the parent) was asked to rate the function of the extremity according to specific criteria (Table I). An extremity that had totally normal function received a score of 5 points, so that a patient who had normal function of both upper extremities had a total score of 10 points.
    The function of the hand was evaluated with use of the hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16. The test consists of seven subtests designed to evaluate the strength and dexterity of the hand in the completion of specific tasks. The tests include (1) writing a short sentence, (2) turning over three-by-five-inch (7.6-by-12.7-centimeter) cards, (3) picking up small objects and placing them into a container, (4) stacking checkers, (5) simulating eating, (6) moving large empty cans, and (7) moving large weighted cans. The time needed to perform the tasks was recorded for each hand. The test was administered by an occupational therapist on our staff who was experienced in its use. Previous reports have established the reliability of this test for both adults and children7,16. Age-grouped normal values are available with standard deviations for each subtest. Grip strength was also measured and was compared with published normal values1,9. With use of the Guidelines to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, published by the American Medical Association, physical impairment (as distinguished from disability) was calculated for each extremity on the basis of the loss of motion of the upper extremity only. By combining the scores for both upper extremities (again ignoring any impairment attributable to involvement of a lower extremity), each patient was assigned a rating for so-called whole-person impairment.
    Our philosophy for the treatment of hereditary multiple exostoses has been to offer excision only to patients who have painful exostoses. No patient in this study group had had an excision, a corrective osteotomy, or a lengthening procedure.
    Radiographs revealed abnormalities of the radial head in ten (18 per cent) of the fifty-six extremities. Subluxation of the radial head was noted in nine extremities (16 per cent) and dislocation was noted in one (2 per cent), although only two (4 per cent) of the fifty-six extremities had symptoms at the elbow. Three (5 per cent) of the fifty-six extremities had evidence of degenerative joint disease.

    Functional Assessment

    The grip strength was compared with known age-matched-control values. The strength on the side of the dominant upper extremity in seven (25 per cent) of the twenty-eight patients was below the fifth percentile for their age. The strength on the side of the non-dominant extremity in ten (36 per cent) of the patients was below the fifth percentile for their age.
    The scores from the hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16 were converted to z-scores ([score of hand test—mean]/standard deviation) to allow statistical analysis of results from patients of different ages and to allow comparison of results from dominant and non-dominant extremities. Despite the physical deformity, the study population scored below two standard deviations from the mean in only one of the subtests of Jebsen et al.—simulated eating with use of the non-dominant extremity. Over-all, the average score was in the forty-seventh percentile for the dominant upper extremity and in the twenty-eighth percentile for the non-dominant extremity. With the numbers available, there was no significant difference between the function of the extremities that had a normal radial head and those that had an abnormal radial head in any of the seven subtests of the hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16.

    Age

    The effect of the age of the patient on deformity, function, and impairment was evaluated in two ways. First, the Pearson correlation coefficients were used to test age as a variable throughout the entire range of ages represented in the study population. Radial inclination was found to increase with increasing age (p = 0.004, r = 0.38). None of the other variables were found to be correlated with age when tested in this way. Second, we postulated that deformity progresses with age but becomes stable at skeletal maturity (Table II). As there were few patients in our series who were in late adolescence, the patients were divided into two groups: those who were ten years old or less and those who were more than ten years old. Pronation decreased from an average of 87 degrees in the younger patients to an average of 66 degrees in the older patients (p = 0.001). Supination decreased from an average of 90 degrees to an average of 84 degrees (p = 0.001). The subjective-assessment score decreased from an average of 9.7 points to an average of 8.1 points (p = 0.001), and the impairment rating increased from an average of 2.3 per cent to an average of 5.1 per cent (p = 0.005). The status of the radial head was significantly different between the age-groups (p = 0.03). Ulnar variance; dorsiflexion, volar flexion, and radial deviation of wrist; and radial inclination were not found to be related to age with use of either method of analysis.

    Status of the Radial Head

    The status of the radial head (normal, subluxated, or dislocated) was significantly related to radial deviation (p = 0.001), ulnar deviation (p = 0.009), pronation (p = 0.001), extension of the elbow (p = 0.04), radial inclination (p = 0.005), negative ulnar variance (p = 0.008), and impairment rating (p = 0.001) (Table III). With the numbers available, the status of the radial head was not significantly related to the age or sex of the patient, supination, flexion of the elbow, dorsiflexion, volar flexion, grip strength, or the subjective-assessment score. The status of the radial head had no effect on the performance of the patients in any of the seven subtests of the hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16.

    Physical Impairment

    The ratings for physical impairment were determined by measuring the range of motion of the extremity2, as described. We wanted to determine if physical impairment measured with this method was actually associated with the functional assessment as reflected by a performance evaluation (the hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16).
    The average rating for impairment was 7 per cent (range, 0 to 28 per cent) for the dominant extremity and 8 per cent (range, 0 to 25 per cent) for the non-dominant extremity. The so-called whole-person impairment rating averaged 5 per cent (range, 0 to 17 per cent). With the numbers available, the impairment rating was not significantly associated with the sex of the patient or with the grip strength of the extremity, but it was associated with age when grouped (p = 0.005), negative ulnar variance (p = 0.001, r = 0.56), the status of the radial head (p = 0.001, r = 0.47), the subjective rating score (p = 0.005, r = 0.37), and subtests 2 (p = 0.03, r = 0.28), 3 (p = 0.04, r = 0.27), 4 (p = 0.006, r = 0.36), 5 (p = 0.005, r = 0.37), and 6 (p = 0.009, r = 0.35) of the hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16. Subtests 1 and 7 (writing a short sentence and moving large weighted cans) were not associated with the impairment rating.
    The characteristic deformity of the upper extremity that is seen in hereditary multiple exostoses consists of severe shortening of the ulna with angular deformity of the distal aspect of the radius. The wrist drifts into ulnar deviation, and often a gradual bowing of the entire radial shaft is apparent. The radial head may be subluxated or dislocated. Motion may be restricted, especially pronation and supination of the forearm. Burgess and Cates evaluated the specific deformities of the forearm in thirty-five patients who had multiple cartilaginous exostoses. Detailed evaluation of serial radiographs revealed a correlation between radial and ulnar shortening (r2 = 0.86). They found that the forearm as a unit showed over-all retardation of growth, and the theory that the shortening of the ulna results in the subsequent shortening of the radius was not supported by their data. Angular deformity of the distal aspect of the radius was not correlated with negative variance of the ulna (r2 = 0.30) or with carpal slip. Although their series was small, it appeared that severe shortening of the ulna of more than 8 per cent was significantly associated (Fisher exact test, p = 0.002) with dislocation of the radial head. The function of the forearm was not evaluated in their study.
    The operative treatment of deformities of the forearm in patients who have hereditary multiple exostoses has been described in many reports3,8,10,11,13,17. All have addressed the excision of the exostoses in an attempt to avoid deformity or the correction of existing deformity with use of osteotomy or stapling of the radial physis, or both. Although improved function was discussed in each article, an objective measurement of function, either before or after the operation, was not included.
    In our patients, a dislocated radial head was found to be significantly associated with a loss of pronation (p = 0.001), a higher impairment rating (p = 0.001), and greater ulnar variance (p = 0.008). However, ulnar variance alone cannot be the single greatest factor causing the radial head to dislocate. The three patients who had the greatest negative ulnar variance all had a normal radial head. Ulnar variance was not associated with age. The severity of the retardation of growth at the distal aspect of the ulna may be genetically determined and, thus, in a sense, preprogrammed to occur. The suggestion that excision of an exostosis at the distal aspect of the ulna will allow the retarded growth of the distal ulnar physis to accelerate and approach normal is purely conjectural. The loss of pronation was significantly associated with an increased impairment rating (as this rating is derived from measuring loss of range of motion) and with a worse score for the status of the radial head, but several patients who had severe loss of pronation had a normal score for the status of the radial head. Osteochondromas impinging on the interosseous membrane may be responsible for the loss of pronation, but this possibility was not evaluated in the present study. If other factors are responsible for the loss of function, maintenance of the radial head in its correct location may not stop or reverse the loss of function in these patients.
    The loss of function of the forearm is probably related to a very complex relationship of multiple factors. The shortening of the ulna (perhaps as a percentage of the length of the forearm), the degree and direction of radial bowing, impingement on the interosseous membrane, the status of the radial head, and other factors may all interact in a way that we cannot predict at present. Whether operative attempts to correct these progressive deformities actually result in measurable improvement in function remains to be studied.
    It is clear that deformities in the upper extremity due to hereditary multiple exostoses are variable but well tolerated by most patients. Even when rated solely on the basis of loss of range of motion, the average physical impairment was slight. The objective measurements showed that the measurable clinical function of the hand is largely preserved within the degree of deformity that is customary for these patients. This attests to the adaptability of growing children when confronted with a slowly developing deformity. The subjective-assessment scores were high, but we made no attempt to evaluate the patient's perception of the cosmetic deformity.
    Previous reports on hereditary multiple exostoses have focused on various operative methods to address the physical deformities of the forearm4,8,10,13,17. Although the combination of ulnar lengthening and stapling of the radial physis appears to be effective for the treatment of the cosmetic deformity, we know of no data that support the supposition that this approach leads to an appreciable increase in function. As the status of the radial head was not associated either with the subjective-assessment score or with the performance on the hand tests of Jebsen et al.7,16, operative attempts to preserve this articulation may not lead to any predictable improvement in function. We think, as do most of our patients and their parents, that operative treatment of the deformity of the forearm is justified, if only for cosmetic improvement. However, reports in the orthopaedic literature on hereditary multiple exostoses have suggested that operative treatment is intended to improve function, and it is clear that this goal has not yet been documented4,8,10,13,17. The present report provides an objective scheme for the assessment of function that may be applied before and after operations on patients who have hereditary multiple exostoses, thus allowing any actual functional benefit from operative procedures to be documented.
    Ager, C. L.; Olivett, B. L.; and |and |Johnson, C. L.: Grasp and pinch strength in children 5 to 12 years old. Am. J. Occup. Ther,38: 107-113, 1984.38107  1984  [PubMed]
     
    American Medical Association: Guidelines to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Ed. 3. Chicago, Illinois, American Medical Association, 1990. 
     
    Burgess, R. C., and |and |Cates, H.: Deformities of the forearm in patients who have multiple cartilaginous exostosis. J. Bone and Joint Surg,75-A: 13-18, Jan. 1993.75-A13  1993 
     
    Fogel, G. R.; McElfresh, E. C.; Peterson, H. A.; and |and |Wicklund, P. T.: Management of deformities of the forearm in multiple hereditary osteochondromas. J. Bone and Joint Surg,66-A: 670-680, June 1984.66-A670  1984 
     
    Hafner, R.; Poznanski, A. K.; and |and |Donovan, J. M.: Ulnar variance in children—standard measurements for evaluation of ulnar shortening in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hereditary multiple exostosis and other bone or joint disorders in childhood. Skel. Radiol,18: 513-516, 1989.18513  1989  [CrossRef]
     
    Jaffe, H. L.: Hereditary multiple exostosis. Arch. Pathol,36: 335-357, 1943.36335  1943 
     
    Jebsen, R. H.; Taylor, N.; Trieschmann, R. B.; Trotter, M. J.; and |and |Howard, L. A.: An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch. Phys. Med. and Rehab,50: 311-319, 1969.50311  1969 
     
    McCornack, E. B.: The surgical management of hereditary multiple exostosis. Orthop. Rev,10: 57-63, 1981.1057  1981 
     
    Mathiowetz, V.; Kashman, N.; Volland, G.; Weber, K.; Oowe, M.; and |and |Rogers, S.: Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch. Phys. Med. and Rehab,66: 69-74, 1985.6669  1985 
     
    Peterson, H. A.: Multiple hereditary osteochondromata. Clin. Orthop,239: 222-230, 1989.239222  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Peterson, H. A.: Deformities and problems of the forearm in children with multiple hereditary osteochondromata. J. Pediat. Orthop,14: 92-100, 1994.1492  1994  [CrossRef]
     
    Shapiro, F.; Simon, S.; and |and |Glimcher, M. J.: Hereditary multiple exostoses. Anthropometric, roentgenographic, and clinical aspects. J. Bone and Joint Surg,61-A: 815-824, Sept. 1979.61-A815  1979 
     
    Siffert, R. S., and |and |Levy, R. N.: Correction of wrist deformity in diaphyseal aclasis by stapling. Report of a case. Bone and Joint Surg,47-A: 1378-1380, Oct. 1965.47-A1378  1965 
     
    Solomon, L.: Bone growth in diaphysial aclasis. J. Bone and Joint Surg,43-B(4): 700-716, 1961.43-B(4)700  1961 
     
    Solomon, L.: Hereditary multiple exostosis. J. Bone and Joint Surg,45-B(2): 292-304, 1963.45-B(2)292  1963 
     
    Taylor, N.; Sand, P. L.; and |and |Jebsen, R. H.: Evaluation of hand function in children. Arch. Phys. Med. and Rehab,54: 129-135, 1973.54129  1973 
     
    Wood, V. E.; Sauser, D.; and |and |Mudge, D.: The treatment of hereditary multiple exostosis of the upper extremity. J. Hand Surg,10A: 505-513, 1985.10A505  1985 
     

    Submit a comment

    Topics

    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Chart showing the distribution of the extremities according to the ages of the patients.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Drawing illustrating the method used to measure the angle (A) of radial inclination.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Drawing showing the method used to measure ulnar variance, which is the difference between the lengths of the radius and ulna (arrows), in both mature and nearly mature children. (Adapted, with permission, from: Hafner, R.; Poznanski, A. K.; and Donovan, J. M.: Ulnar variance in children—standard measurements for evaluation of ulnar shortening in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hereditary multiple exostosis and other bone or joint disorders in childhood. Skel. Radiol., 18: 514, 1989).
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump  TABLE I FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT BY THE PATIENT
    *The total subjective score is derived by adding the scores for both sides.
        Left Hand*Please check the one box that most closely describes the current condition of your hand Left and wrist. Check one box for the left hand Hand* and one for the right.  Right Hand*
        5I have no limitations of my activities and no pain.5
        4I have no pain. I have some limitation of my activities but have not had to change my life (sports activities or job) because of it.4
        3I have no pain. I have had to change or limit my job or give up certain sports activities because of the condition of my hand.3
        2I have pain in my hand, wrist, or elbow, but I have no limitations because of it.2
        1I have pain in my hand, wrist, or elbow, which limits my activities.1
        0  I have pain for which I take medication.0
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump  TABLE II RESULTS ACCORDING TO AGE*
    *The values are averages.†As determined with at t test. NS = not significant.‡0 = normal, 1 = subluxated, and 2 = dislocated.
    Patients Who Were Ten Years Old or Less (N = 6)Patients Who Were More Than Ten Years Old (N = 2)      Significance†
    Dorsiflexion of the wrist (degrees)7769NS
    Volar flexion of the wrist (degress)8075NS
    Radial deviation of the wrist (degrees)2010NS
    Pronation (degrees)87660.001
    Supination (degrees)90840.001
    Radial inclination (degrees)2537NS
    Ulnar variance (mm)-7.3-10.2NS
    Subjective score (point)9.78.10.001
    Status of the radial head‡0.080.230.03
    Impairment rating2(per cent))2.35.10.005
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump  TABLE III RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESULTS AND THE STATUS OF THE RADIAL HEAD
    *As determined with the Pearson correlation coefficient. NS = not significant.
    CharacteristicsLevel of Significance*
    Radial deviation of the wrist0.001
    Ulnar deviation of the wrist0.009
    Pronation0.001
    Extension of the elbow0.04
    Radial inclination0.005
    Negative ulnar variance0.008
    Impairment rating20.001
    Age of the patient  NS
    Sex of the patient  NS
    Dorsiflexion of the wrist  NS
    Volar flexion of the wrist  NS
    Supination  NS
    Flexion of the elbow  NS
    Hand test of Jebsen et al.7,16  NS
    Grip strength  NS
    Subjective score  NS
    Ager, C. L.; Olivett, B. L.; and |and |Johnson, C. L.: Grasp and pinch strength in children 5 to 12 years old. Am. J. Occup. Ther,38: 107-113, 1984.38107  1984  [PubMed]
     
    American Medical Association: Guidelines to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Ed. 3. Chicago, Illinois, American Medical Association, 1990. 
     
    Burgess, R. C., and |and |Cates, H.: Deformities of the forearm in patients who have multiple cartilaginous exostosis. J. Bone and Joint Surg,75-A: 13-18, Jan. 1993.75-A13  1993 
     
    Fogel, G. R.; McElfresh, E. C.; Peterson, H. A.; and |and |Wicklund, P. T.: Management of deformities of the forearm in multiple hereditary osteochondromas. J. Bone and Joint Surg,66-A: 670-680, June 1984.66-A670  1984 
     
    Hafner, R.; Poznanski, A. K.; and |and |Donovan, J. M.: Ulnar variance in children—standard measurements for evaluation of ulnar shortening in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hereditary multiple exostosis and other bone or joint disorders in childhood. Skel. Radiol,18: 513-516, 1989.18513  1989  [CrossRef]
     
    Jaffe, H. L.: Hereditary multiple exostosis. Arch. Pathol,36: 335-357, 1943.36335  1943 
     
    Jebsen, R. H.; Taylor, N.; Trieschmann, R. B.; Trotter, M. J.; and |and |Howard, L. A.: An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch. Phys. Med. and Rehab,50: 311-319, 1969.50311  1969 
     
    McCornack, E. B.: The surgical management of hereditary multiple exostosis. Orthop. Rev,10: 57-63, 1981.1057  1981 
     
    Mathiowetz, V.; Kashman, N.; Volland, G.; Weber, K.; Oowe, M.; and |and |Rogers, S.: Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch. Phys. Med. and Rehab,66: 69-74, 1985.6669  1985 
     
    Peterson, H. A.: Multiple hereditary osteochondromata. Clin. Orthop,239: 222-230, 1989.239222  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Peterson, H. A.: Deformities and problems of the forearm in children with multiple hereditary osteochondromata. J. Pediat. Orthop,14: 92-100, 1994.1492  1994  [CrossRef]
     
    Shapiro, F.; Simon, S.; and |and |Glimcher, M. J.: Hereditary multiple exostoses. Anthropometric, roentgenographic, and clinical aspects. J. Bone and Joint Surg,61-A: 815-824, Sept. 1979.61-A815  1979 
     
    Siffert, R. S., and |and |Levy, R. N.: Correction of wrist deformity in diaphyseal aclasis by stapling. Report of a case. Bone and Joint Surg,47-A: 1378-1380, Oct. 1965.47-A1378  1965 
     
    Solomon, L.: Bone growth in diaphysial aclasis. J. Bone and Joint Surg,43-B(4): 700-716, 1961.43-B(4)700  1961 
     
    Solomon, L.: Hereditary multiple exostosis. J. Bone and Joint Surg,45-B(2): 292-304, 1963.45-B(2)292  1963 
     
    Taylor, N.; Sand, P. L.; and |and |Jebsen, R. H.: Evaluation of hand function in children. Arch. Phys. Med. and Rehab,54: 129-135, 1973.54129  1973 
     
    Wood, V. E.; Sauser, D.; and |and |Mudge, D.: The treatment of hereditary multiple exostosis of the upper extremity. J. Hand Surg,10A: 505-513, 1985.10A505  1985 
     
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    Maine - Central Maine Medical Center