Literature DB >> 13680316

Recognizing and reporting osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Mikayel Grigoryan1, Ali Guermazi, Frank W Roemer, Pierre D Delmas, Harry K Genant.   

Abstract

Vertebral fractures are the hallmark of osteoporosis, and occur with a higher incidence earlier in life than any other type of osteoporotic fractures. It has been shown that both symptomatic and asymptomatic vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Morbidity associated with these fractures includes decreased physical function and social isolation, which have a significant impact on the patient's overall quality of life. Since the majority of vertebral fractures do not come to clinical attention, radiographic diagnosis is considered to be the best way to identify and confirm the presence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in clinical practice. Traditionally, conventional lateral radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine have been visually evaluated by radiologists or clinicians to identify vertebral fractures. The two most widely used methods to determine the severity of such fractures in clinical research are the semiquantitative assessment of vertebral deformities, which is based on visual evaluation, and the quantitative approach, which is based on different morphometric criteria. In our practice for osteoporosis evaluation we use the Genant semiquantitative approach: an accurate and reproducible method tested and applied in many clinical studies. The newest generation of fan-beam DXA systems delivering "high-resolution" lateral spine images offers a potential practical alternative to radiographs for clinical vertebral fracture analysis. The advantages of using DXA over conventional radiographic devices are its minimal radiation exposure and high-speed image acquisition. It also allows combined evaluation of vertebral fracture status and bone mass density, which could become a standard for patient evaluation in osteoporosis. The disadvantage of DXA use is that upper thoracic vertebrae cannot be evaluated in a substantial number of patients due to poor imaging quality. We truly believe that the that there is a major role for radiologists and clinicians alike to carefully assess and diagnose vertebral fractures using standardized grading schemes such as the one outlined in this review. Quantitative morphometry is useful in the context of epidemiological studies and clinical drug trials; however, the studies would be flawed if quantitative morphometry were to be performed in isolation without additional adjudication by a trained and highly experienced radiologist or clinician.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 13680316      PMCID: PMC3591834          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0613-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  43 in total

1.  Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women.

Authors:  L J Melton; S H Kan; M A Frye; H W Wahner; W M O'Fallon; B L Riggs
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease.

Authors:  J A Kanis; P Delmas; P Burckhardt; C Cooper; D Torgerson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Recognition of abnormalities on computed scout images in CT examinations of the head and spine.

Authors:  R N Sener; G T Ripeckyj; P M Otto; R A Rauch; J R Jinkins
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.804

4.  Mild versus definite osteoporosis: comparison of bone densitometry techniques using different statistical models.

Authors:  A F Heuck; J Block; C C Glueer; P Steiger; H K Genant
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Visual identification of vertebral fractures in osteoporosis using morphometric X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  L Ferrar; G Jiang; R Eastell; N F A Peel
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Vertebral fracture assessment using the lateral scoutview of computed tomography in comparison with radiographs.

Authors:  M Takada; C Y Wu; T F Lang; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Comparison of methods for defining prevalent vertebral deformities: the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures.

Authors:  D M Black; L Palermo; M C Nevitt; H K Genant; R Epstein; R San Valentin; S R Cummings
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  A new method for vertebral fracture diagnosis.

Authors:  P D Ross; Y K Yhee; Y F He; J W Davis; C Kamimoto; R S Epstein; R D Wasnich
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 6.741

9.  Comparison of semiquantitative visual and quantitative morphometric assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  H K Genant; M Jergas; L Palermo; M Nevitt; R S Valentin; D Black; S R Cummings
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Optimizing data acquisition and analysis of morphometric X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  J A Rea; P Steiger; G M Blake; I Fogelman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 5.071

View more
  49 in total

1.  A simple method for determining the probability a new vertebral fracture is present in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Authors:  J H Krege; K Siminoski; J D Adachi; D A Misurski; P Chen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-11-22       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  [Automatic measurement of the joint space in rheumatology].

Authors:  R Rau; P Peloschek
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.372

3.  Locally measured microstructural parameters are better associated with vertebral strength than whole bone density.

Authors:  J Hazrati Marangalou; F Eckstein; V Kuhn; K Ito; M Cataldi; F Taddei; B van Rietbergen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  [Radiological diagnosis of osteoporosis].

Authors:  A S Issever; T M Link
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  International Congress of Drug Therapy in HIV Infection 23-26 October 2016, Glasgow, UK.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Int AIDS Soc       Date:  2016-10-23       Impact factor: 5.396

6.  Prevalence of non-fracture short vertebral height is similar in premenopausal and postmenopausal women: the osteoporosis and ultrasound study.

Authors:  L Ferrar; C Roux; D M Reid; D Felsenberg; C C Glüer; R Eastell
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  Quantitative imaging techniques for the assessment of osteoporosis and sarcopenia.

Authors:  Sara Guerri; Daniele Mercatelli; Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez; Alessandro Napoli; Giuseppe Battista; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Alberto Bazzocchi
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-02

Review 8.  New imaging modalities in bone.

Authors:  James F Griffith; Harry K Genant
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.592

9.  Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) by lateral DXA scanning may be cost-effective when used as part of fracture liaison services or primary care screening.

Authors:  E M Clark; L Carter; V C Gould; L Morrison; J H Tobias
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Design and baseline characteristics of a prospective cohort study for determinants of osteoporotic fracture in community-dwelling elderly Japanese men: the Fujiwara-kyo osteoporosis risk in men (FORMEN) study.

Authors:  Masayuki Iki; Yuki Fujita; Junko Tamaki; Katsuyasu Kouda; Akiko Yura; Eiko Kadowaki; Yuho Sato; Jong-Seong Moon; Nozomi Okamoto; Norio Kurumatani
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.