Literature DB >> 16917676

Can you diagnose for vertebral fracture correctly by plain X-ray?

Z Ito1, A Harada, Y Matsui, M Takemura, N Wakao, T Suzuki, T Nihashi, S Kawatsu, H Shimokata, N Ishiguro.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A wrong diagnosis of latent vertebral fracture is often made when it is based on plain X-ray imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a high degree of accuracy for the definite diagnosis. This study was designed to identify ways to support improvements in the diagnostic accuracy of plain X-ray (X-P).
METHODS: We studied X-P and MRI images of 120 women and men (age range: 50-96 years). Five orthopedists and two radiologists interpreted front and lateral thoracolumbar X-Ps and MRI images. The correct diagnosis rate for the presence and location of incident vertebral fractures and the correct diagnosis rate according to morphological classifications were analyzed.
RESULTS: A correct diagnosis of incident fractures was made in 51.5% of cases overall. Diagnoses of non-incident fracture based on X-P in those cases with incident fracture based on MRI (false positive) occurred in 24.8% of the patients, while diagnoses of incident fracture based on X-P in those cases without incident fracture based on MRI (false negative) occurred in 6.5% of the patients. The application of morphological classifications (the primary osteoporosis diagnostic criteria and Yoshida's classification) resulted in the correct diagnosis rate being significantly higher in the group without prevalent fracture even when there were morphological changes (wedge, indented, protruding type) in the anterior bone cortex. Odds ratios were investigated for factors that would affect the correct diagnosis rate, including age, body weight, lumbar vertebrae bone mineral density, and examiner ability. In an overall investigation, age (OR=0.660), body weight (OR=2.082), and examiner ability (p=0.0205) affected the correct diagnosis rate.
CONCLUSION: The correct diagnosis rate for incident vertebral fractures with X-Ps was low (24.8%) and in cases with prevalent fractures, the rate was even lower (16.8%), but the number of prevalent fractures and BMD did not exert an effect. One key improving the correct diagnosis rate may be to pay attention to morphological changes in the anterior bone cortex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16917676     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-006-0123-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  20 in total

1.  Magnetic resonance imaging of vertebral compression fractures.

Authors:  T T Shih; Y H Tsuang; K M Huang; P Q Chen; C T Su
Journal:  J Formos Med Assoc       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study.

Authors:  Pierre D Delmas; Lex van de Langerijt; Nelson B Watts; Richard Eastell; Harry Genant; Andreas Grauer; David L Cahall
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2004-12-06       Impact factor: 6.741

3.  Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the emergency department: prevalence, recognition, and osteoporosis management in a cohort of elderly patients.

Authors:  Sumit R Majumdar; Nancy Kim; Ian Colman; Anthony M Chahal; Gregory Raymond; Ho Jen; Kerry G Siminoski; David A Hanley; Brian H Rowe
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-04-25

4.  Acute vertebral collapse due to osteoporosis or malignancy: appearance on unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MR images.

Authors:  C A Cuénod; J D Laredo; S Chevret; B Hamze; J F Naouri; X Chapaux; J M Bondeville; J M Tubiana
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The diagnostic contribution of the frontal lumbar spine radiograph in community referred low back pain--a prospective study of 1030 patients.

Authors:  L A L Khoo; C Heron; U Patel; R Given-Wilson; A Grundy; K T Khaw; D Dundas
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Back pain, disability, and radiographic vertebral fracture in European women: a prospective study.

Authors:  T W O'Neill; W Cockerill; C Matthis; H H Raspe; M Lunt; C Cooper; D Banzer; J B Cannata; M Naves; B Felsch; D Felsenberg; J Janott; O Johnell; J A Kanis; G Kragl; A Lopes Vaz; G Lyritis; P Masaryk; G Poor; D M Reid; W Reisinger; C Scheidt-Nave; J J Stepan; C J Todd; A D Woolf; J Reeve; A J Silman
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-05-12       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Incidence of low back pain and pre-placement x-ray screening.

Authors:  E S Gibson; R H Martin; C W Terry
Journal:  J Occup Med       Date:  1980-08

8.  Ability of vertebral dimensions from a single radiograph to identify fractures.

Authors:  P D Ross; J W Davis; R S Epstein; R D Wasnich
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.333

9.  Radiograph use in low back pain: a United States Emergency Department database analysis.

Authors:  David M Isaacs; Jacqueline Marinac; Chao Sun
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 1.484

10.  The role of MRI in the diagnosis of occult hip fractures.

Authors:  R Pandey; E McNally; A Ali; C Bulstrode
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.586

View more
  18 in total

1.  Efficacy of the dynamic radiographs for diagnosing acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Authors:  R Niimi; T Kono; A Nishihara; M Hasegawa; A Matsumine; T Kono; A Sudo
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Informed communication with study subjects of radiographically detected osteoporotic vertebral deformity.

Authors:  Yì Xiáng J Wáng; Nazmi Che-Nordin
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-09

3.  Quantitative vertebral morphometry based on parametric modeling of vertebral bodies in 3D.

Authors:  D Stern; V Njagulj; B Likar; F Pernuš; T Vrtovec
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Osteoporotic vertebral fractures: predictive factors for conservative treatment failure. A systematic review.

Authors:  Marco Muratore; Andrea Ferrera; Alessandro Masse; Alessandro Bistolfi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Sarcopenia and sarcopenic leg as potential risk factors for acute osteoporotic vertebral fracture among older women.

Authors:  Tetsuro Hida; Hiroshi Shimokata; Yoshihito Sakai; Sadayuki Ito; Yasumoto Matsui; Marie Takemura; Takehiro Kasai; Naoki Ishiguro; Atsushi Harada
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  [Osteoporosis--which therapy is confirmed?].

Authors:  P M Jehle; J Pfeilschifter
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 0.743

7.  [Osteoporosis--current diagnostics and therapy].

Authors:  Johannes Pfeilschifter
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  2009-08

8.  Can MRI predict subsequent pseudarthrosis resulting from osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures?

Authors:  Hirotsugu Omi; Toru Yokoyama; Atsushi Ono; Takuya Numasawa; Kanichiro Wada; Yoichi Fujisawa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  [Spinal fractures].

Authors:  Roland Biber; S Wicklein; H J Bail
Journal:  Z Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 1.281

10.  Vertebral fracture assessment: impact of instrument and reader.

Authors:  B Buehring; D Krueger; M Checovich; D Gemar; N Vallarta-Ast; H K Genant; N Binkley
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.