0
Scientific Article   |    
Dominant Endosteal Hyperostosis Skeletal Characteristics and Review of the Literature
Rodney K. Beals, MD; Sean W. McLoughlin, PhD; Ronald L. Teed, MD; Clark McDonald, MD
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:1643-1649 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
A family with dominant endosteal hyperostosis was described by the senior one of us (R.K.B.) in 19761. The propositus was a sixty-four-year-old man who had a cemented total hip replacement for the treatment of arthritis that had developed after a traumatic hip dislocation without a fracture. The finding of widespread increased density of the skeleton led to the evaluation of multiple family members. The pedigree demonstrated four generations with affected members. Eight members were examined clinically and radiographically. The affected individuals among the remainder were identified on the basis of family reports as the facial features of individuals with the disorder are quite distinctive. These features are not present until early adulthood so it was not possible to determine with certainty the affected members in the most recent generation. Evaluation of the first three generations indicated that eleven of the twenty-five offspring of affected parents were affected, and the pattern of inheritance included male-to-male transmission. This finding suggests autosomal dominant inheritance and is compatible with findings in previous reports on this condition. The patient willed his body for study following his death.
Autosomal dominant endosteal hyperostosis was first described by Worth and Wollin, in 19662. The dysplasia is characterized by normal stature and intelligence. The age at which it can be diagnosed is not known, but facial changes and diaphyseal radiographic changes are present by adolescence. The facial changes include elongation of the mandible and an increased gonial angle. The forehead becomes flattened. There is a slowly enlarging osseous prominence of the hard palate (torus palatinus). The enlarging mandible and the development of a torus palatinus in the hard palate contribute to malocclusion and loss of teeth. The early radiographic changes include thickening of the endosteum of the long bones and of the skull. There is a gradual increase in density of the posterior elements of the spine, which may be associated with arthritis and may lead to nerve entrapment3. Foraminal encroachment involving the facial, auditory, and optic nerves does not normally occur. Serum calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphatase levels are normal. The limbs are asymptomatic and without deformity. The clinical prognosis for dominant endosteal hyperostosis is generally good despite widespread increased bone density.
In a review of the literature, we found reports1-12 on thirteen kindreds with endosteal hyperostosis, which has been given a variety of names since it was first described in 1966. Of the thirteen kindreds, eleven demonstrated dominant inheritance while two were sporadic cases. Four of the eleven kindreds had male-to-male transmission, indicating autosomal dominant inheritance. The investigators reported torus palatinus in seven of the thirteen kindreds, did not comment on it in five, and stated that it was not present in one. Spinal stenosis was not reported, although the thickening of the posterior facet joints suggests that possibility. The bones of patients with endosteal hyperostosis are heavier than normal. Several affected patients in the present kindred and in others reported difficulty while swimming because of a lack of buoyancy3. The affected bones in patients with endosteal hyperostosis are resistant to fracture. None of the patients in the present kindred have had a fracture despite active lifestyles. Only two patients with a fracture have been reported in the literature: an eighty-five-year-old man who had a hip fracture and a fifteen-year-old boy who sustained a tibial fracture while skiing2,6. The histological and biomechanical properties of bone in this dysplasia have not been previously described.
This condition is to be differentiated from the recessive form of endosteal hyperostosis described by Van Buchem13. Van Buchem dysplasia, which occurs less commonly than dominant endosteal hyperostosis, is seen primarily in the Dutch population and is transmitted by autosomal recessive inheritance. Van Buchem dysplasia is evident in childhood, is more disabling than dominant endosteal hyperostosis, and commonly involves the cranial nerves, with facial palsy or deafness found in more than half of those affected. It is not associated with a torus palatinus. Beighton et al. suggested that Van Buchem dysplasia, which is seen in the Dutch population, and sclerosteosis, which is seen in the South African population, may both be the consequence of homozygosity for the same pair of abnormal genes14. Recent studies15,16 have shown that Van Buchem disease and sclerosteosis are localized to the same region on chromosome 17.
Two other dominantly inherited dysplasias with increased bone density that may be confused with endosteal hyperostosis are Engelmann disease and osteopetrosis. Engelmann disease has its onset in childhood, is associated with muscle weakness, and often causes enlargement of the metaphysis; it does not cause the jaw changes or the torus palatinus seen in endosteal hyperostosis. The late-onset form of osteopetrosis is characterized by a uniform increase in bone density in the pelvis and ribs, frequent occurrence of "sandwich" layers of increased density in the vertebrae and long bones, and an increased prevalence of fractures and anemia.
The spinal changes in endosteal hyperostosis may also be confused with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. The latter disorder is characterized by osseous proliferation at sites of ligamentous attachments and often by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament of the cervical spine and extensive hypertrophic osteophytes of the spine. Affected patients do not have the characteristic facial features or the selective increase in the density of the posterior elements of the spine that are seen in endosteal hyperostosis.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 1:Lateral radiograph of the talus (top) and calcaneus (bottom), demonstrating irregular increased density in the cancellous bone with preservation of normal shape.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2:Anteroposterior radiograph of the hand, demonstrating diaphyseal endosteal thickness of some of the phalanges and metacarpals and coarseness of metaphyseal bone in the carpals and phalanges.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 3:Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the spine, demonstrating increased density of the posterior elements with lateral and anterior osteophytes and areas of fusion.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 4:Lateral radiograph demonstrating a markedly thickened skull and mandible with elongation and deformity of the mandible.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 5:Computed tomography scan of the face, demonstrating the dense midline torus palatinus (arrow) and increased density of cancellous bone at the base of the skull.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6-A:Photomicrograph of cancellous bone from a specimen with endosteal hyperostosis, demonstrating normal but thick trabeculae (magnification, 10).
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6-B:Photomicrograph of cortical bone from a specimen with endosteal hyperostosis, demonstrating packed haversian systems with normal histological findings (magnification, 20).
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6-C:Cross-sectional whole mount of the femur with endosteal hyperostosis (top), demonstrating a marked increase in endosteal thickening compared with that in a control (bottom).
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Stiffness of Cortical Bone
*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
Quantity MeasuredFemurHumerus
Normal (N = 13)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 7)Normal (N = 6)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 11)
Transverse stiffness* (N/mm)10.7 ± 3.0517.4 ± 2.855.45 ± 1.4811.8 ± 4.38
Radial stiffness* (N/mm)11.0 ± 3.2213.4 ± 2.955.37 ± 1.0714.1 ± 1.18
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Results of Testing of Cancellous Bone from the Proximal Part of the Tibia
*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
Quantity Measured?Normal ?(N = 32)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 79)
Maximum load* (N)?43.45 ± 28.03161.6 ± 146.7
Stiffness* (N/mm)?2.090 ± 1.3582.637 ± 4.876
Percent ash weight*45.76 ± 18.864.26 ± 11.50
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE III:  Percent Ash Weight of Cortical Bone*
*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
FemurHumerus
Normal (N = 15)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 12)Normal (N = 5)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 9)
64.63 ± 0.1764.12 ± 0.0540.4 ± 11.267.11 ± 0.60
The donated skull, spine, humeri, ulnae, femora, tibiae, and hand and tarsal bones of the propositus were studied. The bones were wrapped in cloths soaked in 0.9% saline solution, placed in double plastic bags, and frozen at —20°C until tested. The biomechanical findings in the skeleton of the propositus were compared with those in the humeri, femora, and tibiae from an age-matched man who had died of cardiac failure. Neither the propositus nor the normal donor was obese, but their heights and weights were not precisely matched. Specimens were obtained from the same sites and in an identical manner and were tested with use of identical methods.
Radiographs were made of the long bones, hands, feet, spine, pelvis, and skull. Computed tomography scans were made of the spine and skull.
Samples of cancellous and cortical bone were obtained from comparable sites in the normal bones and in those with endosteal hyperostosis, were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin, and were decalcified with use of dilute hydrochloric acid (Decal Stat; Decal Chemical, Congers, New York). Bone sections, 4 mm thick, were cut and were stained with hematoxylin (Fisher Diagnostics, Fairlawn, New Jersey) and eosin. Cross-sectional whole mounts of the femoral diaphysis of the propositus and of the matched normal donor were prepared for histological examination.
Cortical specimens from the middle part of the femur and the middle part of the humerus were tested for stiffness and strength, allowing comparison of the biomechanical properties of both weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing long bones. Rectangular sections of uniform dimensions (75 ¥ 3 ¥ 3 mm) were obtained with use of a bone saw (Exakt; Exakt Technologies, Hamburg, Germany). Care was taken to ensure parallelism of all sides and equal side dimensions. Six, seven, or eight cortical specimens per bone were obtained from each section. The specimens were bathed in saline solution during cutting and were wrapped in saline-solution-soaked gauze until tested.
Each cortical bone specimen was loaded in bending with use of a standard three-point bending fixture to determine the flexural elastic modulus (stiffness) and breaking strength. The specimens were placed on a three-point loading fixture with supports located 50 mm apart with a central bending load applied. Each specimen was cycled through five cycles to 2% of estimated failure load to reduce viscoelastic material behavior. The specimens were then loaded at a rate of 1 mm/min. The central deflection of each specimen and load were recorded at 10 Hz throughout the test. A materials testing machine (Mini Bionix; MTS Systems, Eden Prairie, Minnesota) was used for all mechanical tests. The bending modulus was calculated for each specimen17. The specimen was tested once in a direction radial to and again in a direction circumferential to the axis of the bone18-20.
Statistical analyses were conducted to determine differences in the elastic modulus of the humeri and femora with use of a two-way analysis of variance with the significance level set at p = 0.05.
Specimens of cancellous bone were obtained from the proximal tibial metaphysis to test for stiffness and strength. A 3-cm-thick slice of bone, containing cortical bone around the periphery and cancellous bone in the center, was removed. The proximal surface was sequentially sawed in thin slices until all of the articular surface and cortical bone were removed. The block was then sectioned into small cancellous bone cubes (5 5 5 mm) with use of the bone saw. Specimens containing any cortical bone were discarded. Care was taken to ensure parallelism of all sides. Each cancellous cube was defatted with pressurized water and placed in a bath of saline solution until testing.
The cancellous bone specimens were loaded in compression with use of an unconstrained compression test to determine the compressive elastic modulus, compression strength, and maximum compressive displacement of each specimen18. The specimens were centrally placed on a loading platen, which articulated with the load-cell through a universal joint, ensuring uniaxial loading. Each specimen was loaded at a rate of 1 mm/min in compression until 50% of the initial height was reached. Force and displacement data were collected at 10 Hz. We attempted to control for variable architecture by measuring specimens of the same size, obtained from the same anatomic site, and tested in the same anatomic direction21,22.
The biomechanical properties of bone are highly dependent on the density and architecture of the tissue19,23-25. The density of the tissue was measured by determining the ash weight. The specimens were placed in a furnace at 700C for eighteen hours to remove the organic components. The fraction of remaining substance after ashing was divided by the original weight to determine the mineral fraction.

Radiographic Examination

Postmortem radiographs of the long and short bones of the extremities affected by endosteal hyperostosis demonstrated thick, dense endosteal bone in the diaphysis. The medullary canals were narrow but patent, and the endosteal surface was not uniform. The tarsal and carpal bones demonstrated thick and irregular trabeculae (Figs. 1 and 2). The vertebrae demonstrated increased density, coarse trabeculae, and large osteophytes. The posterior elements were more dense than the vertebral bodies. There was spontaneous fusion in segments of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebrae (Fig. 3). Computed tomography scans of the spine demonstrated that the vertebral laminae were thick with enlarged, arthritic facet joints. The pelvis had coarse trabeculae and increased density in the periacetabular region. The cortex of the skull was very thick. The mandible was edentulous and elongated, and it had an increased gonial angle (Fig. 4). The torus palatinus was prominently demonstrated on the computed tomography scan (Fig. 5).

Histological Evaluation

Sections of the metaphyseal and diaphyseal regions of the humerus, femur, and vertebrae were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and examined histologically. The diaphyseal cortex of the bone with endosteal hyperostosis demonstrated marked thickening compared with that in the normal specimen, but the haversian systems and cement lines showed a normal arrangement. The trabeculae of the cancellous bone of the vertebrae with endosteal hyperostosis were thicker than normal, but the architectural features were normal. The whole mounts of the femora with endosteal hyperostosis demonstrated marked endosteal thickening of the cortical bone in the diaphysis (Figs. 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C).

Mechanical Testing and Mineral Density

The cortical bone of both the femur and the humerus with endosteal hyperostosis was found to be stiffer than that of the normal femur and humerus (p < 0.05). Post hoc testing with use of the Bonferroni test demonstrated that the stiffness of the normal femur was not significantly different from that of the normal humerus26. The radial stiffness of the humerus with endosteal hyperostosis was significantly greater than that of the normal femur and humerus. The radial stiffness of the femur with endosteal hyperostosis was significantly greater (p £ 0.05) than that of the normal humerus but not greater than that of the normal femur (Table I).
The compressive stiffness of the cancellous bone of the tibia with endosteal hyperostosis was not significantly different from that of the normal tibia. The mean maximum compressive load of the tibia with endosteal hyperostosis was significantly higher than that of the normal tibia (p £ 0.05) (Table II).
The percent ash weight of the cortical bone of the femur with endosteal hyperostosis was not found to be different from that of the normal femur. The normal humerus had a significantly lower percent ash weight than the humerus with endosteal hyperostosis had (p £ 0.05) (Table III). The percent ash weight of the cancellous bone of the normal tibia was significantly lower than that of the tibia with endosteal hyperostosis (p £ 0.05) (Table II).
Endosteal hyperostosis may be more common than is implied by the few reports on it in the literature, as two additional kindreds with this disorder have been identified by the senior one of us (R.K.B). The original diagnosis in these patients had been osteopetrosis. The initial radiographic feature of this dysplasia is hyperostosis of the endosteal surface of the diaphysis of the long bones combined with involvement of the skull and mandible. With advancing age, the trabeculae of the metaphysis become thickened. The age when torus palatinus appears has not been documented, but it may prove to be a good clinical determinant of involvement in patients who are at risk for the disorder.
The factors that contribute to the stiffness of bone include the quality, quantity, and architecture of the tissue. Quality was assessed through biomechanical testing, quantity was assessed by measuring ash weight, and architecture was assessed histologically.
Biomechanical testing revealed that both cortical and cancellous bone in patients with endosteal hyperostosis were stiffer than normal bone. We contrasted the biomechanical properties of the bone in the skeleton of a patient with endosteal hyperostosis with those of the bone in only one normal skeleton. Testing multiple skeletons might produce somewhat different results.
Both ash weight and strength (maximum load) were increased in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing bones in the patient with endosteal hyperostosis compared with those in the normal skeleton. The mineral ash weight of cortical bone in endosteal hyperostosis was similar to that of normal bone, whereas the ash weight of cancellous bone in endosteal hyperostosis was increased compared with that of normal bone.
Histological evaluation demonstrated that the metaphyseal trabeculae in the bone with endosteal hyperostosis were thicker than those in the normal bone. Cortical thickness was also greater in the bone with endosteal hyperostosis compared with that in the normal bone. The cellular architecture was normal.
In this dysplasia, the bones are neither increased in size nor deformed as they are in Paget or Engelmann disease, and they are not prone to fracture as they are in Paget disease and osteopetrosis. None of the patients in the three large kindreds that we examined have had fractures despite active lifestyles, and only two fractures have been reported in the literature. Indeed, this dysplasia appears to offer protection from fracture. It is interesting to speculate that localization and characterization of the causative gene may provide useful information on how to enhance bone strength in conditions in which it has been weakened.
In conclusion, dominant endosteal hyperostosis becomes clinically and radiographically evident by adolescence, does not cause deformity except in the skull and mandible, and is not associated with bone pain or fracture. The initial radiographic changes are thickening of the endosteal surface of the long bones. The osseous changes are slowly progressive and eventually affect cancellous bone in older patients. Arthritic changes associated with foraminal encroachment in the spine as well as facial and jaw changes slowly progress in adulthood. Endosteal hyperostosis does not appear to affect longevity. Biomechanical testing indicates that there is increased strength of cortical and cancellous bone. This dysplasia appears to offer some protection against fracture.
Beals RK. Endosteal hyperostosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1976;58: 1172-3. 581172  1976  [PubMed]
 
Worth HM,Wollin DG. Hyperostosis corticalis generalisata congenita. J Can Assoc Radiol,1966;17: 67-74. 1767  1966  [PubMed]
 
Ades LC, Morris LL, Burns R,Haan EA. Neurological involvement in Worth type endosteal hyperostosis: report of a family. Am J Med Genet,1994;51: 46-50. 5146  1994  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Demonchy A, Valat JP, Neveur CA,Le Chevallier PL. Generalised cortical hyperostosis. One case (author’s transl). Nouv Presse Med,1978;7: 2849-51. French72849  1978  [PubMed]
 
Gelman MI. Autosomal dominant osteosclerosis. Radiology,1977;125: 289-96. 125289  1977  [PubMed]
 
Irie T, Takahashi M,Kaneko M. Case report 546: Endosteal hyperostosis (Worth type). Skeletal Radiol,1989;18: 310-3. 18310  1989  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Lapresle J, Maroteaux P, Kuffer R, Said G,Meyer O. Dominant generalized cortical hyperostosis with multiple involvement of the cranial nerves. Nouv Presse Med,1976;5: 2703-6. French52703  1976  [PubMed]
 
Maroteaux P, Fontaine G, Scharfman W,Farriaux JP. Generalized hyperostosis corticalis (dominant transmission) (Worth’s type). Arch Fr Pediatr,1971;28: 685-98. French28685  1971  [PubMed]
 
Moretti C, D’Osualdo F, Modesto A, Benedetti A,Corsi M. Endosteal hyperostosis with dominant transmission. Description of 8 cases in 3 generations of the same nuclear family. Radiol Med,1982;68: 151-8. Italian68151  1982  [PubMed]
 
Owen RH. Van Buchem’s disease (hyperostosis corticalis generalisata). Br J Radiol,1976;49: 126-32. 49126  1976  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Perez-Vicente JA, Rodriguez de Castro E, Lafuente J, Mateo MM,Gimenez-Roldan S. Autosomal dominant endosteal hyperostosis. Report of a Spanish family with neurological involvement. Clin Genet,1987;31: 161-9. 31161  1987  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Russell WJ, Bizzozero O Jr,Omori Y. Idiopathic osteosclerosis. A report of 6 related cases. Radiology,1968;90: 70-6. 9070  1968  [PubMed]
 
Van Buchem FSP. Hyperostosis corticalis generalisata. Acta Med Scand,1971;189: 257-67. 189257  1971  [PubMed]
 
Beighton P, Barnard A, Hamersma H,van der Wouden A. The syndromic status of sclerosteosis and van Buchem disease. Clin Genet,1984;25: 175-81. 25175  1984  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Van Hul W, Balemans W, Van Hul E, Dikkers FG, Obee H, Stokroos RJ, Hildering P, Vanhoenacker F, Van Camp G,Willems PJ. Van Buchem disease (hyperostosis corticalis generalisata) maps to chromosome 17q12-q21. Am J Hum Genet,1998;62: 391-9. 62391  1998  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Balemans W, Van Den Ende J, Freire Paes-Alves A, Dikkers FG, Willems PJ, Vanhoenacker F, de Almeida-Melo N, Alves CF, Stratakis CA, Hill SC,Van Hul W. Localization of the gene for sclerosteosis to the van Buchem disease-gene region on chromosome 17q12-q21. Am J Hum Genet,1999;64: 1661-9. 641661  1999  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Roark RJ, Young WC. Formulas for stress and strain. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1975. p 292. 
 
Carter DR,Spengler DM. Mechanical properties and composition of cortical bone. Clin Orthop,1978;135: 192-217. 135192  1978  [PubMed]
 
Cowin SC. Mechanical properties of cortical bone tissue. In Cowin SC, editor. Bone mechanics handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1989. p 97-128. 
 
Reilly DT,Burstein AH. Review article. The mechanical properties of cortical bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1974;56: 1001-22. 561001  1974  [PubMed]
 
Goldstein SA. The biomechanical properties of trabecular bone: dependence on anatomic location and function. J Biomech,1987;20: 1055-61.. 201055  1987  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Rohlmann A, Zilch H, Bergmann G,Kolbel R. Material properties of femoral cancellous bone in axial loading. Part I: Time independent properties. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1980;97: 95-102. 9795  1980  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Choi K, Kuhn JL, Ciarelli MJ,Goldstein SA. The elastic modulus of trabecular, subchondral, and cortical bone tissue. Trans Orthop Res Soc,1989;14: 102. 14102  1989 
 
Rice JC, Cowin SC,Bowman JA. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech,1988;21: 155-68. 21155  1988  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Williams JL,Lewis JL. Properties and an anisotropic model of cancellous bone from the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Biomech Eng,1982;104: 50-6. 10450  1982  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1996 
 

Submit a comment

Topics

Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 1:Lateral radiograph of the talus (top) and calcaneus (bottom), demonstrating irregular increased density in the cancellous bone with preservation of normal shape.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2:Anteroposterior radiograph of the hand, demonstrating diaphyseal endosteal thickness of some of the phalanges and metacarpals and coarseness of metaphyseal bone in the carpals and phalanges.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 3:Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the spine, demonstrating increased density of the posterior elements with lateral and anterior osteophytes and areas of fusion.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 4:Lateral radiograph demonstrating a markedly thickened skull and mandible with elongation and deformity of the mandible.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 5:Computed tomography scan of the face, demonstrating the dense midline torus palatinus (arrow) and increased density of cancellous bone at the base of the skull.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6-A:Photomicrograph of cancellous bone from a specimen with endosteal hyperostosis, demonstrating normal but thick trabeculae (magnification, 10).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6-B:Photomicrograph of cortical bone from a specimen with endosteal hyperostosis, demonstrating packed haversian systems with normal histological findings (magnification, 20).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6-C:Cross-sectional whole mount of the femur with endosteal hyperostosis (top), demonstrating a marked increase in endosteal thickening compared with that in a control (bottom).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Stiffness of Cortical Bone
*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
Quantity MeasuredFemurHumerus
Normal (N = 13)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 7)Normal (N = 6)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 11)
Transverse stiffness* (N/mm)10.7 ± 3.0517.4 ± 2.855.45 ± 1.4811.8 ± 4.38
Radial stiffness* (N/mm)11.0 ± 3.2213.4 ± 2.955.37 ± 1.0714.1 ± 1.18
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Results of Testing of Cancellous Bone from the Proximal Part of the Tibia
*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
Quantity Measured?Normal ?(N = 32)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 79)
Maximum load* (N)?43.45 ± 28.03161.6 ± 146.7
Stiffness* (N/mm)?2.090 ± 1.3582.637 ± 4.876
Percent ash weight*45.76 ± 18.864.26 ± 11.50
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE III:  Percent Ash Weight of Cortical Bone*
*The values are given as the mean and the standard deviation.
FemurHumerus
Normal (N = 15)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 12)Normal (N = 5)Endosteal Hyperostosis (N = 9)
64.63 ± 0.1764.12 ± 0.0540.4 ± 11.267.11 ± 0.60
Beals RK. Endosteal hyperostosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1976;58: 1172-3. 581172  1976  [PubMed]
 
Worth HM,Wollin DG. Hyperostosis corticalis generalisata congenita. J Can Assoc Radiol,1966;17: 67-74. 1767  1966  [PubMed]
 
Ades LC, Morris LL, Burns R,Haan EA. Neurological involvement in Worth type endosteal hyperostosis: report of a family. Am J Med Genet,1994;51: 46-50. 5146  1994  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Demonchy A, Valat JP, Neveur CA,Le Chevallier PL. Generalised cortical hyperostosis. One case (author’s transl). Nouv Presse Med,1978;7: 2849-51. French72849  1978  [PubMed]
 
Gelman MI. Autosomal dominant osteosclerosis. Radiology,1977;125: 289-96. 125289  1977  [PubMed]
 
Irie T, Takahashi M,Kaneko M. Case report 546: Endosteal hyperostosis (Worth type). Skeletal Radiol,1989;18: 310-3. 18310  1989  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Lapresle J, Maroteaux P, Kuffer R, Said G,Meyer O. Dominant generalized cortical hyperostosis with multiple involvement of the cranial nerves. Nouv Presse Med,1976;5: 2703-6. French52703  1976  [PubMed]
 
Maroteaux P, Fontaine G, Scharfman W,Farriaux JP. Generalized hyperostosis corticalis (dominant transmission) (Worth’s type). Arch Fr Pediatr,1971;28: 685-98. French28685  1971  [PubMed]
 
Moretti C, D’Osualdo F, Modesto A, Benedetti A,Corsi M. Endosteal hyperostosis with dominant transmission. Description of 8 cases in 3 generations of the same nuclear family. Radiol Med,1982;68: 151-8. Italian68151  1982  [PubMed]
 
Owen RH. Van Buchem’s disease (hyperostosis corticalis generalisata). Br J Radiol,1976;49: 126-32. 49126  1976  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Perez-Vicente JA, Rodriguez de Castro E, Lafuente J, Mateo MM,Gimenez-Roldan S. Autosomal dominant endosteal hyperostosis. Report of a Spanish family with neurological involvement. Clin Genet,1987;31: 161-9. 31161  1987  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Russell WJ, Bizzozero O Jr,Omori Y. Idiopathic osteosclerosis. A report of 6 related cases. Radiology,1968;90: 70-6. 9070  1968  [PubMed]
 
Van Buchem FSP. Hyperostosis corticalis generalisata. Acta Med Scand,1971;189: 257-67. 189257  1971  [PubMed]
 
Beighton P, Barnard A, Hamersma H,van der Wouden A. The syndromic status of sclerosteosis and van Buchem disease. Clin Genet,1984;25: 175-81. 25175  1984  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Van Hul W, Balemans W, Van Hul E, Dikkers FG, Obee H, Stokroos RJ, Hildering P, Vanhoenacker F, Van Camp G,Willems PJ. Van Buchem disease (hyperostosis corticalis generalisata) maps to chromosome 17q12-q21. Am J Hum Genet,1998;62: 391-9. 62391  1998  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Balemans W, Van Den Ende J, Freire Paes-Alves A, Dikkers FG, Willems PJ, Vanhoenacker F, de Almeida-Melo N, Alves CF, Stratakis CA, Hill SC,Van Hul W. Localization of the gene for sclerosteosis to the van Buchem disease-gene region on chromosome 17q12-q21. Am J Hum Genet,1999;64: 1661-9. 641661  1999  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Roark RJ, Young WC. Formulas for stress and strain. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1975. p 292. 
 
Carter DR,Spengler DM. Mechanical properties and composition of cortical bone. Clin Orthop,1978;135: 192-217. 135192  1978  [PubMed]
 
Cowin SC. Mechanical properties of cortical bone tissue. In Cowin SC, editor. Bone mechanics handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1989. p 97-128. 
 
Reilly DT,Burstein AH. Review article. The mechanical properties of cortical bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1974;56: 1001-22. 561001  1974  [PubMed]
 
Goldstein SA. The biomechanical properties of trabecular bone: dependence on anatomic location and function. J Biomech,1987;20: 1055-61.. 201055  1987  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Rohlmann A, Zilch H, Bergmann G,Kolbel R. Material properties of femoral cancellous bone in axial loading. Part I: Time independent properties. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1980;97: 95-102. 9795  1980  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Choi K, Kuhn JL, Ciarelli MJ,Goldstein SA. The elastic modulus of trabecular, subchondral, and cortical bone tissue. Trans Orthop Res Soc,1989;14: 102. 14102  1989 
 
Rice JC, Cowin SC,Bowman JA. On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density. J Biomech,1988;21: 155-68. 21155  1988  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Williams JL,Lewis JL. Properties and an anisotropic model of cancellous bone from the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Biomech Eng,1982;104: 50-6. 10450  1982  [PubMed][CrossRef]
 
Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1996 
 
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
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