Classical metaphyseal lesions thought to be pathognomonic of child abuse are often artifacts or indicative of metabolic bone disease.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to review the histopathology in the original articles by authors Kleinman and Marks that described the specificity of the classical metaphyseal lesion for child abuse and to determine if there were any oversights in the authors' analysis.

METHODS

We reviewed the histopathology of the original studies that equated the classical metaphyseal lesion with child abuse. We compared this with the histopathology of metaphyseal fractures caused by known accidental, severe trauma in children and reviewed the histopathology of artifacts that can sometimes be produced in bone histology preparations.

RESULTS

Acute classical metaphyseal lesions showed no hemorrhage, and the chronic classical metaphyseal showed islands of cartilage proliferation at the metaphyses and growth plate, findings consistent with rickets and other metabolic bone disorders. Some of the acute metaphyseal lesions were consistent with artifacts.

CONCLUSION

We believe the original studies that equate the classical metaphyseal lesion with child abuse are flawed. The most compelling observation that challenges the histopathology of the classical metaphyseal lesion as being a fracture is the absence of hemorrhage in the acute classical metaphyseal lesion. We hypothesize that some of the classical metaphyseal lesions were artifacts or represent metabolic bone disorders that were not considered and that these two non-traumatic explanations may have been the basis of the abnormal bone findings.