UNLABELLED: Detection of patients with vertebral fracture is similar for areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with non-vertebral fracture. In non-osteoporotic patients, TBS adds information to lumbar spine aBMD and is related to an index of spine deterioration. INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fractures (VFs) are more predictive of future fracture than aBMD. The number and severity of VFs are related to microarchitecture deterioration. TBS has been shown to be related to microarchitecture. The study aimed at evaluating TBS in the prediction of the presence and severity of VFs. METHODS: Patients were selected from a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS): aBMD and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) were assessed after the fracture, using dual-energy X-ray-absorptiometry (DXA). VFs were classified using Genant's semiquantitative method and severity, using the spinal deformity index (SDI). TBS was obtained after analysis of DXA scans. Performance of TBS and aBMD was assessed using areas under the curves (AUCs). RESULTS: A total of 362 patients (77.3% women; mean age 74.3 ± 11.7 years) were analysed. Prevalence of VFs was 36.7%, and 189 patients (52.2%) were osteoporotic. Performance of TBS was similar to lumbar spine (LS) aBMD and hip aBMD for the identification of patients with VFs. In the population with aBMD in the non-osteoporotic range (n = 173), AUC of TBS for the discrimination of VFs was higher than the AUC of LS aBMD (0.670 vs 0.541, p = 0.035) but not of hip aBMD; there was a negative correlation between TBS and SDI (r = -0.31; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Detection of patients with vertebral fracture is similar for aBMD and TBS in patients with non-vertebral fracture. In patients with aBMD in the non-osteoporotic range, TBS adds information to lumbar spine aBMD alone and is related to an index of spine deterioration.
UNLABELLED: Detection of patients with vertebral fracture is similar for areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with non-vertebral fracture. In non-osteoporoticpatients, TBS adds information to lumbar spine aBMD and is related to an index of spine deterioration. INTRODUCTION:Vertebral fractures (VFs) are more predictive of future fracture than aBMD. The number and severity of VFs are related to microarchitecture deterioration. TBS has been shown to be related to microarchitecture. The study aimed at evaluating TBS in the prediction of the presence and severity of VFs. METHODS:Patients were selected from a Fracture Liaison Service (FLS): aBMD and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) were assessed after the fracture, using dual-energy X-ray-absorptiometry (DXA). VFs were classified using Genant's semiquantitative method and severity, using the spinal deformity index (SDI). TBS was obtained after analysis of DXA scans. Performance of TBS and aBMD was assessed using areas under the curves (AUCs). RESULTS: A total of 362 patients (77.3% women; mean age 74.3 ± 11.7 years) were analysed. Prevalence of VFs was 36.7%, and 189 patients (52.2%) were osteoporotic. Performance of TBS was similar to lumbar spine (LS) aBMD and hip aBMD for the identification of patients with VFs. In the population with aBMD in the non-osteoporotic range (n = 173), AUC of TBS for the discrimination of VFs was higher than the AUC of LS aBMD (0.670 vs 0.541, p = 0.035) but not of hip aBMD; there was a negative correlation between TBS and SDI (r = -0.31; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Detection of patients with vertebral fracture is similar for aBMD and TBS in patients with non-vertebral fracture. In patients with aBMD in the non-osteoporotic range, TBS adds information to lumbar spine aBMD alone and is related to an index of spine deterioration.
Authors: R D Chapurlat; F Duboeuf; H O Marion-Audibert; B Kalpakçioglu; B H Mitlak; P D Delmas Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2006-06-07 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W Browner; J Cauley; K Ensrud; H K Genant; L Palermo; J Scott; T M Vogt Journal: Lancet Date: 1993-01-09 Impact factor: 79.321
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
Authors: Katie L Stone; Dana G Seeley; Li-Yung Lui; Jane A Cauley; Kristine Ensrud; Warren S Browner; Michael C Nevitt; Steven R Cummings Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Tineke A C M van Geel; Kirsten M B Huntjens; Joop P W van den Bergh; Geert-Jan Dinant; Piet P Geusens Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 5.096
Authors: Thiyagarajan Thangavelu; Emily Silverman; Mohammed P Akhter; Elizabeth Lyden; Robert R Recker; Laura A Graeff-Armas Journal: Bone Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: M R McClung; K Lippuner; M L Brandi; J R Zanchetta; H G Bone; R Chapurlat; D Hans; A Wang; C Zapalowski; C Libanati Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: N C Harvey; C C Glüer; N Binkley; E V McCloskey; M-L Brandi; C Cooper; D Kendler; O Lamy; A Laslop; B M Camargos; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli; J A Kanis Journal: Bone Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Lisanne Vranken; Caroline E Wyers; Joop P W van den Bergh; Piet P M M Geusens Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 4.333