Literature DB >> 18204960

[Use of imaging procedures in the diagnostics of osteoporosis interpretation of x-rays and bone density measurements].

Wolfgang Pollähne1, Michael Pfeifer, Helmut W Minne.   

Abstract

According to the recently published BoneEVA study, 7.8 million Germans (6.5 million women) are affected by osteoporosis. Of them, 4.3% experienced at least one clinical fracture. Only 21.7% were treated with an anti-osteoporotic drug, whereby only 10% received a bisphosphonate and 17% given calcium and vitamin D. On the other hand, as osteoporosis may be associated with severe pain in 90% of patients, analgesics are prescribed. The total direct costs attributable to osteoporosis amounted to Euro 5.4 billion in 2003. One out of three postmenopausal women and one out of five men over the age of 50 years will experience osteoporotic fractures unless preventive measures are undertaken. According to the German guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis, bone densitometry using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) together with other clinical risk factors (previous low trauma fracture, use of nicotine, low body weight [BMI<20 kg/m2], immobilisation, and more than two falls during the last six months) are recommended for diagnosis. Using typical cases out of clinical practice, this article delineates frequent mistakes in the interpretation of DXA measurements. Furthermore, the present paper clarifies the role of classical x-rays, which still represent the predominant procedure for the identification of fractures and especially vertebral fractures. In comparison to x-rays, CT or MRI are more important in differential diagnosis of malignant disease and bone metastases. Essentially a reduction of vertebral height without evidence of central endplate fracture in postmenopausal women may be unrelated to osteoporosis. Quantitative morphometry should not be used alone for the assessment of vertebral fracture in clinical decision-making. Therefore, we recommend differential diagnosis of morphometric vertebral deformities by an expert reader to rule out deformities related to degenerative disease and norm variants of which we will present several examples to train the view of the reader.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18204960     DOI: 10.1007/s10354-007-0485-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr        ISSN: 0043-5341


  3 in total

1.  [Osteoporosis].

Authors:  H W Minne; M Pfeifer; B Begerow; W Pollähne
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Epidemiology, treatment and costs of osteoporosis in Germany--the BoneEVA Study.

Authors:  B Häussler; H Gothe; D Göl; G Glaeske; L Pientka; D Felsenberg
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-09-19       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Is short vertebral height always an osteoporotic fracture? The Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study (OPUS).

Authors:  L Ferrar; G Jiang; G Armbrecht; D M Reid; C Roux; C C Glüer; D Felsenberg; R Eastell
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2007-04-04       Impact factor: 4.398

  3 in total
  3 in total

1.  [Prophylaxis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (ORA study)].

Authors:  I Heberlein; W Demary; H Bloching; J Braun; F Buttgereit; R Dreher; C Kuhn; U Lange; W Pollähne; A Zink; H Zeidler; H Häntzschel; H Raspe
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.372

2.  Metabolic bone diseases: basic and clinical aspects.

Authors:  Jaroslava Wendlová
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2007

Review 3.  [Pitfalls and difficulties in interpretation of bone densitometry].

Authors:  R Scholz; G Borte; G von Salis-Soglio; C-E Heyde
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.087

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.