Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vertebral fracture assessment: impact of instrument and reader

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Many osteoporotic vertebral fractures are not clinically recognized but increase fracture risk. We hypothesized that a newer generation densitometer increases the number of evaluable vertebrae and vertebral fractures detected. We also explored the impact of reader experience on vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) interpretation.

Methods

VFA images obtained using Prodigy and iDXA densitometers in 103 older adults were evaluated for vertebral visualization and fracture presence in the T4–L5 region. A “true” read for each densitometer was achieved by consensus. If readers disagreed, the evaluation of a third expert physician was taken as true. Main outcomes were evaluable vertebrae, vertebral fractures, and intrareader/interreader reproducibility.

Results

Using the “true” reads, 92% of vertebrae were visualized on iDXA and 76% on Prodigy. Numerically, more fractures were identified with iDXA; the “true” reads found 43 fractures on iDXA and 21 on Prodigy. The experienced reader had better intrareader and interreader reproducibility than the inexperienced reader when compared with the “true” read.

Conclusions

Using the newer iDXA densitometer for VFA analysis improves vertebral body visualization and fracture detection. Training and experience enhance result reproducibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooper C, Melton LJ (1992) Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Trends Endocrinol Metab 3:224–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Melton LJ et al (1989) Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 129:1000–1011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnell O, Kanis J (2005) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 16:S3–S7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanis JA et al (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35(2):375–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanis JA et al (2007) The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int 18(8):1033–1046

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Black DM et al (1999) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. J Bone Miner Res 14:821–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ismail AA et al (2001) Prevalent vertebral deformity predicts incident hip though not distal forearm fracture: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 12(2):85–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Delmas PD et al (2005) Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 20(4):557–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gehlbach SH et al (2000) Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 11(7):577–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jalava T et al (2003) Association between vertebral fracture and increased mortality in osteoporotic patients. J Bone Miner Res 18:1254–1260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnell O et al (2004) Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 15:38–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kanis JA et al (2004) Excess mortality after hospitalisation for vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:108–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dawson-Hughes B et al (2008) Implications of absolute fracture risk assessment for osteoporosis practice guidelines in the USA. Osteoporos Int 19:449–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. WHO (2008) WHO fracture assessment tool (FRAX). www.shef.ac.uk/frax

  15. Watts NB et al (2008) National Osteoporosis Foundation 2008 clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX): what they mean to the bone densitometrist and bone technologist. J Clin Densitom 11:473–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanis JA et al (2008) FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int 19(4):385–397

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. WHO (2007) World Health Organisation Scientific Group on the assessment of osteoporosis at the primary health care level. Summary Meeting Report. World Organisation 2007

  18. NOF (2008) Clinician's guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. http://www.nof.org/professionals/Clinicians_Guide.htm

  19. Herss Nielsen VA et al (1991) Precision in assessment of osteoporosis from spine radiographs. Eur J Radiol 13(1):11–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Steiger P et al (1994) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry of the spine: correlation in vivo with morphometric radiography. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Osteoporos Int 4(5):238–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ito Z et al (2006) Can you diagnose for vertebral fracture correctly by plain X-ray? Osteoporos Int 17(11):1584–1591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewiecki EM, Laster AJ (2006) Clinical review: clinical applications of vertebral fracture assessment by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91(11):4215–4222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuerst T, Wu C, Genant HK, von Ingersleben G, Chen Y, Johnston C, Econs MJ, Binkley N, Vokes TJ, Crans G, Mitlak BH (2008) Evaluation of vertebral fracture assessment by dual X-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter setting. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-008-0806-9

  24. Ferrar L et al (2008) Algorithm-based qualitative and semiquantitative identification of prevalent vertebral fracture: agreement between different readers, imaging modalities, and diagnostic approaches. J Bone Miner Res 23(3):417–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang G et al (2004) Comparison of methods for the visual identification of prevalent vertebral fracture in osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 15(11):887–896

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rea JA et al (2000) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of prevalent vertebral deformity identification. J Bone Miner Res 15(3):564–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Genant HK et al (2000) Vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: a new method for clinical assessment. J Clin Densitom 3(3):281–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pavlov L, Gamble GD, Reid IR (2005) Comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and conventional radiography for the detection of vertebral fractures. J Clin Densitom 8(4):379–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schousboe JT, Debold CR (2006) Reliability and accuracy of vertebral fracture assessment with densitometry compared to radiography in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 17(2):281–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferrar L et al (2000) Identification of vertebral deformities in women: comparison of radiological assessment and quantitative morphometry using morphometric radiography and morphometric X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 15(3):575–585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Clowes JA, Eastell R (2008) Chapter 36. Vertebral fracture assessment. Primer 7(1):186–193

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krueger D et al (2006) Comparison of GE Healthcare Lunar Prodigy and Lunar iDXA densitometers. In: ASMBR 2006, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  33. Buehring B et al (2008) Enhanced fracture detection with iDXA: effect on mild fracture identification. In: ISCD 14th Annual Meeting, San Francisco

  34. Vokes T et al (2006) Vertebral fracture assessment: the 2005 ISCD official positions. J Clin Densitom 9:37–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Genant HK et al (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schousboe JT et al (2008) Vertebral fracture assessment: the 2007 ISCD official positions. J Clin Densitom 11(1):92–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Genant HK, Jergas M, Van Kuijk C (1995) Vertebral fracture in osteoporosis. University of California, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ferrar L et al (2007) Is short vertebral height always an osteoporotic fracture? The Osteoporosis and Ultrasound Study (OPUS). Bone 41(1):5–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ferrar L et al (2007) Identification of vertebral fracture and non-osteoporotic short vertebral height in men: the MrOS study. J Bone Miner Res 22(9):1434–1441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ferrar L et al (2008) Comparison of densitometric and radiographic vertebral fracture assessment using the algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method in postmenopausal women at low and high risk of fracture. J Bone Miner Res 23(1):103–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ferrar L et al (2005) Identification of vertebral fractures: an update. Osteoporos Int 16(7):717–728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jiang G et al (2007) Standardised quantitative morphometry: a modified approach for quantitative identification of prevalent vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int 18(10):1411–1419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program, University of Wisconsin, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA

    B. Buehring, D. Krueger, M. Checovich, D. Gemar, N. Vallarta-Ast & N. Binkley

  2. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    H. K. Genant

Authors
  1. B. Buehring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Checovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Gemar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Vallarta-Ast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. K. Genant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. Binkley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Buehring.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buehring, B., Krueger, D., Checovich, M. et al. Vertebral fracture assessment: impact of instrument and reader. Osteoporos Int 21, 487–494 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0972-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-009-0972-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation