Detection of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures Using Multidetector CT

Overview

Journal Osteoporos Int

Specialties Endocrinology
Orthopedics

Date 2006 Jan 27

PMID 16437195

Citations 28

Authors

J S Bauer

D Muller

A Ambekar

M Dobritz

M Matsuura

F Eckstein

E J Rummeny

T M Link

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Goals were to compare the performance of lateral radiographs and sagittal reformations (SR) of axial computed tomography (CT) datasets in identification of osteoporotic vertebral fractures and to assess for optimal slice thickness in axial CT datasets needed for reliable classification of these fractures.

Methods: Sixty-five vertebrae were harvested from 21 human cadaver spines and examined with a 64-row multidetector CT scanner. Axial images were acquired with a slice thickness of 0.6, 1, 2, 3 and 5 mm and SR were obtained using these datasets. In addition, specimens were radiographed in antero-posterior and lateral orientation. Vertebrae visualized in the different image datasets were separately graded by four radiologists according to the spinal fracture index (SFI) classification. Fracture status determined in a consensus reading of interactive reformations of the 0.6-mm CT dataset in all three dimensions served as a standard of reference in combination with pathological examinations.

Results: The average agreement for the 0.6-mm SR obtained between each radiologist and standard of reference for the grading of the fractures was very good (kappa=0.81). It was good for the 1-, 2- and 3-mm SR (kappa=0.70, 0.69 and 0.64), but only moderate for the radiographs (kappa=0.52), and fair for the 5-mm SR (kappa=0.33). When focusing only on detection of fractures, independent of the grading, all kappa values improved by about 0.15, resulting in excellent values for the 0.6-mm through 3-mm SR (0.95<kappa<0.79) and good values for the radiographs (kappa=0.72). Ninety-five percent of the fractures could be identified using the 1-mm SR, but 18% of the fractures were missed on the radiographs.

Conclusions: Sagittal CT reformations could more accurately assess vertebral fractures than standard radiographs. But for reliable detection of these fractures, SR derived from axial images with a slice thickness of 3 mm or less are required. The thinnest available axial slice thickness performed best in fracture grading.

Citing Articles

Prevalence of vertebral fractures at death.

Ogawa N, Yamamoto M, Kobayashi R, Kawamura A, Matsumoto A, Otani H J Bone Miner Metab. 2025; .

PMID: 39806228 DOI: 10.1007/s00774-025-01577-z.

Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem computed tomography for fractures of the hyoid-larynx complex.

Hansen J, Larsen S, Jacobsen C Int J Legal Med. 2024; 138(6):2357-2371.

PMID: 39014249 DOI: 10.1007/s00414-024-03293-1.

Incidental vertebral fracture prediction using neuronal network-based automatic spine segmentation and volumetric bone mineral density extraction from routine clinical CT scans.

Bodden J, Dieckmeyer M, Sollmann N, Burian E, Ruhling S, Loffler M Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14:1207949.

PMID: 37529605 PMC: 10390306. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1207949.

Incidental Identification of Vertebral Fragility Fractures by Chest CT in COVID-19-Infected Individuals.

Patil V, Reddy A, Kale A, Vadlamudi A, Kishore J, Jani C Cureus. 2022; 14(5):e24867.

PMID: 35698715 PMC: 9184180. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24867.

Level-Specific Volumetric BMD Threshold Values for the Prediction of Incident Vertebral Fractures Using Opportunistic QCT: A Case-Control Study.

Dieckmeyer M, Loffler M, El Husseini M, Sekuboyina A, Menze B, Sollmann N Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022; 13:882163.

PMID: 35669688 PMC: 9165054. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.882163.

References

Gehlbach S, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood J . Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int. 2000; 11(7):577-82. DOI: 10.1007/s001980070078. View

Wu C, van Kuijk C, Li J, Jiang Y, Chan M, Countryman P . Comparison of digitized images with original radiography for semiquantitative assessment of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2000; 11(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1007/s001980050002. View

Ismail A, Cockerill W, Cooper C, Finn J, Abendroth K, Parisi G . Prevalent vertebral deformity predicts incident hip though not distal forearm fracture: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int. 2001; 12(2):85-90. DOI: 10.1007/s001980170138. View

Wintermark M, Mouhsine E, Theumann N, Mordasini P, van Melle G, Leyvraz P . Thoracolumbar spine fractures in patients who have sustained severe trauma: depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2003; 227(3):681-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2273020592. View

Barnett E, Nordin B . The radiological diagnosis of osteoporosis: a new approach. Clin Radiol. 1960; 11:166-74. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(60)80012-8. View

Center J, Nguyen T, Schneider D, Sambrook P, Eisman J . Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet. 1999; 353(9156):878-82. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09075-8. View

Kim N, Rowe B, Raymond G, Jen H, Colman I, Jackson S . Underreporting of vertebral fractures on routine chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 182(2):297-300. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820297. View

Delmas P, van de Langerijt L, Watts N, Eastell R, Genant H, Grauer A . Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res. 2005; 20(4):557-63. DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.041214. View

Takada M, Wu C, Lang T, Genant H . Vertebral fracture assessment using the lateral scoutview of computed tomography in comparison with radiographs. Osteoporos Int. 1998; 8(3):197-203. DOI: 10.1007/s001980050054. View

10.

Kado D, Duong T, Stone K, Ensrud K, Nevitt M, Greendale G . Incident vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 14(7):589-94. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1412-5. View

11.

Black D, Palermo L, Nevitt M, Genant H, Christensen L, Cummings S . Defining incident vertebral deformity: a prospective comparison of several approaches. The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res. 1999; 14(1):90-101. DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.1.90. View

12.

Begemann P, Kemper J, Gatzka C, Stork A, Nolte-Ernsting C, Adam G . Value of multiplanar reformations (MPR) in multidetector CT (MDCT) of acute vertebral fractures: do we still have to read the transverse images?. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2004; 28(4):572-80. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-200407000-00023. View

13.

ONeill T, Cockerill W, Matthis C, Raspe H, Lunt M, Cooper C . Back pain, disability, and radiographic vertebral fracture in European women: a prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2004; 15(9):760-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1615-4. View

14.

Brandt M, Wahl W, Yeom K, Kazerooni E, Wang S . Computed tomographic scanning reduces cost and time of complete spine evaluation. J Trauma. 2004; 56(5):1022-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.ta.0000124304.68584.2c. View

15.

Gestring M, Gracias V, Feliciano M, Reilly P, Shapiro M, Johnson J . Evaluation of the lower spine after blunt trauma using abdominal computed tomographic scanning supplemented with lateral scanograms. J Trauma. 2002; 53(1):9-14. DOI: 10.1097/00005373-200207000-00003. View

16.

Rubin G . Data explosion: the challenge of multidetector-row CT. Eur J Radiol. 2000; 36(2):74-80. DOI: 10.1016/s0720-048x(00)00270-9. View

17.

Cockerill W, Lunt M, Silman A, Cooper C, Lips P, Bhalla A . Health-related quality of life and radiographic vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2003; 15(2):113-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1547-4. View

18.

Blackmore C, Mann F, Wilson A . Helical CT in the primary trauma evaluation of the cervical spine: an evidence-based approach. Skeletal Radiol. 2001; 29(11):632-9. DOI: 10.1007/s002560000270. View

19.

Ensrud K, Thompson D, Cauley J, Nevitt M, Kado D, Hochberg M . Prevalent vertebral deformities predict mortality and hospitalization in older women with low bone mass. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(3):241-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02641.x. View

20.

Hanley J, McNeil B . The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982; 143(1):29-36. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747. View