Literature DB >> 9166395

Ex vivo estimation of thoracolumbar vertebral body compressive strength: the relative contributions of bone densitometry and vertebral morphometry.

S J Edmondston1, K P Singer, R E Day, R I Price, P D Breidahl.   

Abstract

The estimation of vertebral fracture risk in individuals with suspected osteopenia is commonly based on measurements of lumbar spine bone density. The efficacy of vertebral size and deformity, as assessed by vertebral morphometry, in the prediction of fractures has been less studied. In an ex vivo investigation the regional relationships between vertebral size, vertebral deformity, bone density and compressive strength throughout the thoracolumbar spine were examined. In 16 vertebral columns (T1-L5) the bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) of each segment were measured using lateral projection dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and the vertebral cancellous density (VCD) and mid-vertebral cross-sectional area (CSA) measured using quantitative computed tomography. Vertebral body heights were determined from mid-sagittal CT scans, and vertical height ratios calculated for each segment. The failure load and failure stress of the isolated vertebral bodies were determined using a material testing device. Separate analyses were performed for the upper (T1-4), middle (T5-8) and lower (T9-12) thoracic, and lumbar (L1-5) segments. In all regions, failure load was strongly correlated with BMD (r = 0.82-0.86), moderately correlated with VCD (r = 0.60-0.71) and vertebral height (r = 0.22-0.49), and poorly correlated with the height ratios (r = 0.04-0.33). Failure stress was best predicted by BMD (r = 0.73-0.78) and VCD (r = 0.70-0.78) but was poorly correlated with all morphometric variables (r = 0.01-0.33). The segmental correlations between BMD and VCD ranged form r = 0.49 to r = 0.79. For all regions, BMD and VCD were included in the stepwise regression models for predicting failure load and failure stress. Either the mid-vertebral height or CSA were included in all the failure load models, while mid-vertebral height was included in only one of the failure stress models. The results suggest that vertebral deformity and size (as assessed by vertebral morphometry) make only a minor contribution to the prediction of vertebral strength additional to that provided by bone densitometry alone. The consistent regional relationships between variables appear to support the practice of global fracture risk assessment based on lumbar spine densitometry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9166395     DOI: 10.1007/bf01623690

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


  19 in total

1.  Vertebral fracture or vertebral deformity.

Authors:  M Kleerekoper; D A Nelson
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 4.333

2.  In-vitro relationships between vertebral body density, size, and compressive strength the elderly thoracolumbar spine.

Authors:  S J Edmondston; K P Singer; R E Day; P D Breidahl; R I Price
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  Spinal compression fractures in osteoporotic women: patterns and relationship to hyperkyphosis.

Authors:  A A De Smet; R G Robinson; B E Johnson; B P Lukert
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  The relationship between bone mineral density, vertebral body shape and spinal curvature in the elderly thoracolumbar spine: an in vitro study.

Authors:  S J Edmondston; K P Singer; R I Price; R E Day; P D Breidahl
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Vertebral cortical bone mass measurement by a new quantitative computer tomography method: correlations with vertebral trabecular bone measurements.

Authors:  R Pacifici; R C Rupich; L V Avioli
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  Prediction of vertebral strength by dual photon absorptiometry and quantitative computed tomography.

Authors:  S A Eriksson; B O Isberg; J U Lindgren
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 4.333

7.  Pre-existing fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women.

Authors:  P D Ross; J W Davis; R S Epstein; R D Wasnich
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-06-01       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Predicting vertebral fracture incidence from prevalent fractures and bone density among non-black, osteoporotic women.

Authors:  P D Ross; H K Genant; J W Davis; P D Miller; R D Wasnich
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  The relationship of degeneration of the intervertebral disc to mechanical loading conditions on lumbar vertebrae.

Authors:  P Kurowski; A Kubo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Aging changes in vertebral morphometry.

Authors:  D Diacinti; M Acca; E D'Erasmo; E Tomei; G F Mazzuoli
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.333

View more
  21 in total

1.  High heritability of bone size at the hip and spine in Chinese.

Authors:  Wei-Xia Jian; Ji-Rong Long; Hong-Wen Deng
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 3.172

2.  Mechanical loading during growth is associated with plane-specific differences in vertebral geometry: A cross-sectional analysis comparing artistic gymnasts vs. non-gymnasts.

Authors:  Jodi N Dowthwaite; Paula F Rosenbaum; Tamara A Scerpella
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 4.398

3.  Accuracy of DXA scanning of the thoracic spine: cadaveric studies comparing BMC, areal BMD and geometric estimates of volumetric BMD against ash weight and CT measures of bone volume.

Authors:  Meena M Sran; Karim M Khan; Kathy Keiver; Jason B Chew; Heather A McKay; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Role of trabecular microarchitecture in whole-vertebral body biomechanical behavior.

Authors:  Aaron J Fields; Senthil K Eswaran; Michael G Jekir; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Comparison of quantitative computed tomography-based measures in predicting vertebral compressive strength.

Authors:  Jenni M Buckley; Kenneth Loo; Julie Motherway
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 4.398

6.  The Safe Functional Motion test is reliable for assessment of functional movements in individuals at risk for osteoporotic fracture.

Authors:  Norma J MacIntyre; Carrie L Stavness; Jonathan D Adachi
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  The effect of osteoporotic vertebral fracture on predicted spinal loads in vivo.

Authors:  Andrew M Briggs; Tim V Wrigley; Jaap H van Dieën; Bev Phillips; Sing Kai Lo; Alison M Greig; Kim L Bennell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-07-04       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Pedicle screw fixation with kyphoplasty decreases the fracture risk of the treated and adjacent non-treated vertebral bodies: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Pan Yang; Ying Zhang; Huan-Wen Ding; Jian Liu; Lin-Qiang Ye; Jin Xiao; Qiang Tu; Tao Yang; Fei Wang; Guo-Gang Sun
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2016-12-07

9.  Clinical utility of dual-energy vertebral assessment (DVA).

Authors:  Tamara J Vokes; Larry B Dixon; Murray J Favus
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-09-11       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  The associations between QCT-based vertebral bone measurements and prevalent vertebral fractures depend on the spinal locations of both bone measurement and fracture.

Authors:  D E Anderson; S Demissie; B T Allaire; A G Bruno; D L Kopperdahl; T M Keaveny; D P Kiel; M L Bouxsein
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-08-08       Impact factor: 4.507

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.