Literature DB >> 20680502

Underreported vertebral fractures in an Italian population: comparison of plain radiographs vs quantitative measurements.

G Difede1, G Scalzo, S Bucchieri, G Moretti, G Campisi, N Napoli, G Battista Rini, G Guglielmi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Vertebral fractures (VFs) are the hallmark of osteoporosis and are responsible for almost 70,000 hospital admissions yearly, implying social costs and impaired quality of life for patients. In recent years, several techniques, both qualitative and quantitative, have been proposed for VF diagnosis, but a gold standard is not yet available and the visual semiquantitative (VSQ) assessment proposed by Genant remains the most validated. However, given the lack of a standardised method, in clinical practice, the diagnosis of VF is often missed, and patients are not correctly assessed. The aim of our study was to estimate the percentage of VFs not detected in clinical practice in italian population using the VSQ method and a new morphometric technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 283 postmenopausal women referred to our clinic for osteoporosis screening, we performed a clinical examination, plain spinal radiographs (for VSQ assessment) and digital computerised morphometry (DCM) to assess VFs. Bone density was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of patients had a T score <-2.5 standard deviations (SD), and 35.2% were osteopenic, but no significant correlations between T score and grade or number of fractures were found. DCM identified VFs in 38.5% of patients versus 32.5% using the VSQ method. Overall, 280 VFs were detected by DCM and 236 by VSQ, whereas only 105 were recognised by the reports.
CONCLUSIONS: VFs went undetected in 55.5% according to the VSQ method on standard spinal radiographs. Therefore, the morphometric technique may be helpful when performed with the semiquantitative approach to improve recognition of VFs. However, other studies are needed to further validate the utility of this new morphometric technique in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20680502     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-010-0554-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  29 in total

1.  Reproducibility of a semi-automatic method for 6-point vertebral morphometry in a multi-centre trial.

Authors:  Giuseppe Guglielmi; Luca Pio Stoppino; Maria Grazia Placentino; Francesco D'Errico; Francesco Palmieri
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-12-19       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 2.  Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures.

Authors:  P D Ross
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-08-18       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  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

4.  Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting.

Authors:  S H Gehlbach; C Bigelow; M Heimisdottir; S May; M Walker; J R Kirkwood
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  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

6.  Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: a prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

Authors:  D M Kado; W S Browner; L Palermo; M C Nevitt; H K Genant; S R Cummings
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1999-06-14

7.  Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography.

Authors:  N Kim; B H Rowe; G Raymond; H Jen; I Colman; S A Jackson; K G Siminoski; A M Chahal; D Folk; S R Majumdar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk.

Authors:  John A Kanis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-06-01       Impact factor: 79.321

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.  Assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures using specialized workflow software for 6-point morphometry.

Authors:  Giuseppe Guglielmi; Francesco Palmieri; Maria Grazia Placentino; Francesco D'Errico; Luca Pio Stoppino
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 3.528

View more
  3 in total

1.  New dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry equipment in the assessment of vertebral fractures: technical limits and software accuracy.

Authors:  Alberto Bazzocchi; Danila Diano; Giuseppe Battista; Ugo Albisinni; Cristina Rossi; Giuseppe Guglielmi
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Quality assurance of imaging techniques used in the clinical management of osteoporosis.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; J Damilakis; G Solomou; A Bazzocchi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Vertebral morphometry by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for osteoporotic vertebral fractures assessment (VFA).

Authors:  D Diacinti; G Guglielmi; D Pisani; D Diacinti; R Argirò; C Serafini; E Romagnoli; S Minisola; C Catalano; V David
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.469

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.