RESUMEN
Prior studies show vertebral strength from computed tomography-based finite element analysis may be associated with vertebral fracture risk. We found vertebral strength had a strong association with new vertebral fractures, suggesting that vertebral strength measures identify those at risk for vertebral fracture and may be a useful clinical tool. INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the association between vertebral strength by quantitative computed tomography (CT)-based finite element analysis (FEA) and incident vertebral fracture (VF). In addition, we examined sensitivity and specificity of previously proposed diagnostic thresholds for fragile bone strength and low BMD in predicting VF. METHODS: In a case-control study, 26 incident VF cases (13 men, 13 women) and 62 age- and sex-matched controls aged 50 to 85 years were selected from the Framingham multi-detector computed tomography cohort. Vertebral compressive strength, integral vBMD, trabecular vBMD, CT-based BMC, and CT-based aBMD were measured from CT scans of the lumbar spine. RESULTS: Lower vertebral strength at baseline was associated with an increased risk of new or worsening VF after adjusting for age, BMI, and prevalent VF status (odds ratio (OR) = 5.2 per 1 SD decrease, 95% CI 1.3-19.8). Area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve comparisons revealed that vertebral strength better predicted incident VF than CT-based aBMD (AUC = 0.804 vs. 0.715, p = 0.05) but was not better than integral vBMD (AUC = 0.815) or CT-based BMC (AUC = 0.794). Additionally, proposed fragile bone strength thresholds trended toward better sensitivity for identifying VF than that of aBMD-classified osteoporosis (0.46 vs. 0.23, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: This study shows an association between vertebral strength measures and incident vertebral fracture in men and women. Though limited by a small sample size, our findings also suggest that bone strength estimates by CT-based FEA provide equivalent or better ability to predict incident vertebral fracture compared to CT-based aBMD. Our study confirms that CT-based estimates of vertebral strength from FEA are useful for identifying patients who are at high risk for vertebral fracture.
Asunto(s)
Osteoporosis/diagnóstico por imagen , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/diagnóstico por imagen , Fracturas de la Columna Vertebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Densidad Ósea/fisiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Femenino , Análisis de Elementos Finitos , Humanos , Vértebras Lumbares/diagnóstico por imagen , Vértebras Lumbares/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Osteoporosis/fisiopatología , Fracturas Osteoporóticas/fisiopatología , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Interpretación de Imagen Radiográfica Asistida por Computador/métodos , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Fracturas de la Columna Vertebral/fisiopatología , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodosRESUMEN
UNLABELLED: We examined how spinal location affects the relationships between quantitative computed tomography (QCT)-based bone measurements and prevalent vertebral fractures. Upper spine (T4-T10) fractures appear to be more strongly related to bone measures than lower spine (T11-L4) fractures, while lower spine measurements are at least as strongly related to fractures as upper spine measurements. INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fracture (VF), a common injury in older adults, is most prevalent in the mid-thoracic (T7-T8) and thoracolumbar (T12-L1) areas of the spine. However, measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) are typically made in the lumbar spine. It is not clear how the associations between bone measurements and VFs are affected by the spinal locations of both bone measurements and VF. METHODS: A community-based case-control study includes 40 cases with moderate or severe prevalent VF and 80 age- and sex-matched controls. Measures of vertebral BMD, strength (estimated by finite element analysis), and factor of risk (load:strength ratio) were determined based on QCT scans at the L3 and T10 vertebrae. Associations were determined between bone measures and prevalent VF occurring at any location, in the upper spine (T4-T10), or in the lower spine (T11-L4). RESULTS: Prevalent VF at any location was significantly associated with bone measures, with odds ratios (ORs) generally higher for measurements made at L3 (ORs = 1.9-3.9) than at T10 (ORs = 1.5-2.4). Upper spine fracture was associated with these measures at both T10 and L3 (ORs = 1.9-8.2), while lower spine fracture was less strongly associated (ORs = 1.0-2.4) and only reached significance for volumetric BMD measures at L3. CONCLUSIONS: Closer proximity between the locations of bone measures and prevalent VF does not strengthen associations between bone measures and fracture. Furthermore, VF etiology may vary by region, with VFs in the upper spine more strongly related to skeletal fragility.