BACKGROUND: Bone quality should play an important role in decision-making for orthopaedic treatment options, implant selection, and affect ultimate surgical outcomes. The development of decision-making tools, currently typified by clinical guidelines, is highly dependent on the precise definition of the term(s) and the appropriate design of basic and clinical studies. This review was performed to determine the extent to which the issue of bone quality has been subjected to this type of process. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We address the following issues: (1) current methods of clinically assessing bone quality; (2) emerging technologies; (3) how bone quality connects with surgical decision-making and the ultimate surgical outcome; and (4) gaps in knowledge that need to be closed to better characterize bone quality for more relevance to clinical decision-making. METHODS: PubMed was used to identify selected papers relevant to our discussion. Additional sources were found using the references cited by identified papers. RESULTS: Bone mineral density remains the most commonly validated clinical reference; however, it has had limited specificity for surgical decision-making. Other structural and geometric measures have not yet received enough study to provide definitive clinical applicability. A major gap remains between the basic research agenda for understanding bone quality and the transfer of these concepts to evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: Basic bone quality needs better definition through the systematic study of emerging technologies that offer a more precise clinical characterization of bone. Collaboration between basic scientists and clinicians needs to improve to facilitate the development of key questions for sound clinical studies.
BACKGROUND: Bone quality should play an important role in decision-making for orthopaedic treatment options, implant selection, and affect ultimate surgical outcomes. The development of decision-making tools, currently typified by clinical guidelines, is highly dependent on the precise definition of the term(s) and the appropriate design of basic and clinical studies. This review was performed to determine the extent to which the issue of bone quality has been subjected to this type of process. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We address the following issues: (1) current methods of clinically assessing bone quality; (2) emerging technologies; (3) how bone quality connects with surgical decision-making and the ultimate surgical outcome; and (4) gaps in knowledge that need to be closed to better characterize bone quality for more relevance to clinical decision-making. METHODS: PubMed was used to identify selected papers relevant to our discussion. Additional sources were found using the references cited by identified papers. RESULTS: Bone mineral density remains the most commonly validated clinical reference; however, it has had limited specificity for surgical decision-making. Other structural and geometric measures have not yet received enough study to provide definitive clinical applicability. A major gap remains between the basic research agenda for understanding bone quality and the transfer of these concepts to evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: Basic bone quality needs better definition through the systematic study of emerging technologies that offer a more precise clinical characterization of bone. Collaboration between basic scientists and clinicians needs to improve to facilitate the development of key questions for sound clinical studies.
Authors: Philip C Noble; Nobuhiko Sugano; James D Johnston; Matthew T Thompson; Michael A Conditt; Charles A Engh; Kenneth B Mathis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: James L Howard; Andrew J Hui; Robert B Bourne; Richard W McCalden; Steven J MacDonald; Cecil H Rorabeck Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Paul M Mayhew; C David Thomas; John G Clement; Nigel Loveridge; Thomas J Beck; William Bonfield; Chris J Burgoyne; Jonathan Reeve Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 9-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stefan Judex; Steve Boyd; Yi-Xian Qin; Lisa Miller; Ralph Müller; Clinton Rubin Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.096
Authors: John L Gaffey; John J Callaghan; Douglas R Pedersen; Devon D Goetz; Patrick M Sullivan; Richard C Johnston Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Lukas Weiser; Gerd Huber; Kay Sellenschloh; Lennart Viezens; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Wolfgang Lehmann Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2017-04-08 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Joseph E Tanenbaum; Stephanie T Kha; Edward C Benzel; Michael P Steinmetz; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Oliver R Boughton; Shaocheng Ma; Xiran Cai; Liye Yan; Laura Peralta; Pascal Laugier; James Marrow; Finn Giuliani; Ulrich Hansen; Richard L Abel; Quentin Grimal; Justin P Cobb Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 4.379