Posted on Updated on

Osteopetrosis, literally “stone bone”, also known as marble bone disease and Albers-Schonberg disease is an extremely rare inherited disorder whereby the bones harden, becoming denser, in contrast to more prevalent conditions like osteoporosis, in which the bones become less dense and more brittle, or osteomalacia, in which the bones soften. Osteopetrosis can cause bones to dissolve and break.


5 thoughts on “Osteopetrosis

    URL said:
    July 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    … [Trackback]

    […] Informations on that Topic: rrcmrt.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/842/ […]

    fiverrr23Jz said:
    June 26, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Thanks again for the blog post.Much thanks again. Awesome.

    CT said:
    February 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find most of your post’s to be exactly
    what I’m looking for. can you offer guest writers to write content to suit your needs?
    I wouldn’t mind producing a post or elaborating on a lot of
    the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome web site!

    lickere said:
    July 17, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    anyone also of the opinion that proprietary trading by radiologists should be banned?

    Medical Radiology News said:
    July 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Colonoscopy, CT colonography or none of the above

    Although a study that appeared in Lancet Oncology comparing colonoscopy and CT colonography concluded that both techniques could be acceptable for population-based screening for colorectal cancer, it may be too soon to confirm the true benefit of either approach, according to a commentary published in the July 17 edition of the American College of Physicians (ACP) Journal Club.

    “Compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy or fecal blood testing, colonoscopy is more expensive and hazardous (e.g., need for bowel preparation and sedation); in addition, the ability of colonoscopy to prevent proximal colon cancer is uncertain,” wrote Ronald L. Koretz, MD, of Olive View—UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar, Calif. “CT colonography is expensive, exposes [the patient] to radiation, requires colonoscopic follow-up for intestinal lesions, and has unknown potential for harm or benefit when identifying noncolonic incidental abnormalities.”

    Koretz argued that a colon cancer screening test should prevent mortality and morbidity at an affordable cost. The study from Stoop et al (Lancet Oncol 2012;13:55-64) that compared colonoscopy and CT colonography did not feature a no-screening control group, and doesn’t provide any insight into the cost-effectiveness of either test, according to Koretz. Only guaiac-based fecal testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy have high-grade evidence comparing the screening method to a no-screening control.

    “Given the economic limitations in health care, we should be wary of accepting either colonoscopy or CT colonography without definitive evidence of benefit compared with doing nothing,” wrote Koretz.

    Stoop and colleagues found that participation rates for colorectal cancer screening were higher when patients were invited to undergo CT colonography rather than colonoscopy. Colonoscopy, however, had a higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia per participant, which made the overall diagnostic yield per invitee similar between the two techniques.

    The ACP Journal Club is a monthly feature of Annals of Internal Medicine that summarizes new evidence for internal medicine from more than 130 clinical journals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s