Skip to main content
Log in

Lateral vertebral assessment: a valuable technique to detect clinically significant vertebral fractures

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

Abstract

Although many vertebral fractures are clinically silent, they are associated with increased risk for subsequent osteoporotic fractures. A substantial number of these fractures are demonstrable using instant vertebral assessment with Hologic densitometers. Whether similar recognition is possible using dual-energy lateral vertebral assessment (LVA) with GE Lunar densitometers remains uncertain. Thus, we evaluated the ability of clinicians using LVA to detect prevalent vertebral fractures. Dual-energy LVA and conventional thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs were concurrently obtained in 80 postmenopausal women. Using an established visual semiquantitative system, vertebral fractures were identified individually by two non-radiologist clinicians on LVA images, and the results were compared with spinal radiograph evaluation by an expert radiologist. Using LVA, 95% of vertebral bodies from T7 through L4 were evaluable, but a majority (66%) of vertebrae from T4 to T6 were not adequately visualized. In the LVA-evaluable vertebrae, prevalent fractures were identified in 40 vertebral bodies by radiography. In this regard, the clinicians using LVA detected 17 of 18 radiographically evident vertebral fractures of grade 2 or 3, a false negative rate of 6%. They identified 50% (11/22) of grade 1 fractures. Additionally, the vast majority of evaluable non-fractured vertebrae, (764/794, 96.2%) were correctly classified as normal by LVA. Thus, clinicians utilizing LVA correctly identified the vast majority of grade 2 or 3 vertebral compression fractures and normal vertebral bodies, although detection of grade 1 fractures was less effective. In conclusion, the low-radiation, dual-energy LVA technique provides a rapid and convenient way for clinicians to identify patients with, and without, grade 2 or 3 vertebral fractures, thereby enhancing care of osteoporotic patients.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3 a–c

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, Jacobsen SL, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ (1993) Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures. Am J Epidemiol 137:1001–1005

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ensrud K, Thompson D, Cauley J et al (2000) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict mortality and hospitalization in older women with low bone mass. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:241–249

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jalava T, Sarna S, Pylkkanen L et al (2003) Association between vertebral fracture and increased mortality in osteoporotic patients. J Bone Miner Res 18:1254–1260

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gold DT (2001) The nonskeletal consequences of osteoporotic fractures. Psychologic and social outcomes. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 27:255–262

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM et al (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: A prospective study. Ann Intern Med 128:793–800

    Google Scholar 

  6. Silverman SL, Minshall ME, Shen W, Harper KD, Xie S (2001) The relationship of health-related quality of life to prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: Results from the multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation study. Arthritis Rheum 44:2611–2619

    Google Scholar 

  7. Melton LJ, Atkinson EJ, Cooper C, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1999) Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures. Osteoporos Int 10:214–221

    Google Scholar 

  8. Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L, Pearson J, Cummings SR (1999) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. J Bone Miner Res 14:821–828

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon M, Melton LJ 3rd (1992) Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 7:221–227

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rea JA, Chen MB, Li J et al (2001) Vertebral morphometry: A comparison of long-term precision of morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography in normal and osteoporotic subjects. Osteoporos Int 12:158–166

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rea JA, Li J, Blake GM et al (2000) Visual assessment of vertebral deformity by X-ray absorptiometry: A highly predictive method to exclude vertebral deformity. Osteoporos Int 11:660–668

    Google Scholar 

  12. Greenspan SL, von Stetten E, Emond SK, Jones L, Parker RA (2001) Instant vertebral assessment. J Clin Densitom 4:373–380

    Google Scholar 

  13. Genant HK, Li J, Wu CY, Shepherd JA (2000) Vertebral fractures in osteoporosis. J Clin Densitom 3:281–290

    Google Scholar 

  14. Genant HK, Wu CY, Van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148

    Google Scholar 

  15. Genant HK, Jergas M, Palmero L et al (1996) Comparison of semiquantitative visual and quantitative morphometric assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis: The study of osteoporotic fractures research group. J Bone Miner Res 11:984–996

    Google Scholar 

  16. Anonymous (1995) Report: Assessing vertebral fractures. National Osteoporosis Foundation working group on vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 10:518–523

    Google Scholar 

  17. Genant HK, Jergas M (2003) Assessment of prevalent and incident vertebral fractures in osteoporosis research. Osteoporos Int 14:S43–S55

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ziegler R, Scheidt-Nave C, Leidig-Bruckner G (1996) What is a vertebral fracture? Bone 18:169S–177S

    Google Scholar 

  19. Osman AAH, Bassiouni H, Koutri R et al (1994) Aging of the thoracic spine: Distinction between wedging in osteoarthritis and fracture in osteoporosis—A cross-section and longitudinal study. Bone 15:437–442

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kleerekoper M, Nelson DA (1990) Vertebral fracture or vertebral deformity? Calcif Tissue Int 50:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harrison JE, Patt N, Muller C et al (1990) Bone mineral mass associated with postmenopausal vertebral deformities. Bone Miner 10:243–251

    Google Scholar 

  22. Szulc P, Munoz F, Marchand F, Delmas PD (2001) Semiquantitative evaluation of prevalent vertebral deformities in men and their relationship with osteoporosis: The MINOS study. Osteoporos Int 12:302–310

    Google Scholar 

  23. Genant HK, Mitlak BH, Myers S, Wang O (2000) Radiographic fracture grade is related to clinical disease severity. Results from the rhPTH (1–34) fracture prevention study. Arthritis Rheum 43:S383

    Google Scholar 

  24. Delmas PD, Genant HK, Crans GG et al (2003) Severity of prevalent vertebral fractures and the risk of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures: results from the MORE trial. Bone 33:522–532

    Google Scholar 

  25. Delmas PD, Watts N, Eastell R et al (2001) Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: The IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 16 [Suppl 1]:S139

  26. Gehlback SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M et al (2000) Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 11:577–582

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sauer P, Leidig G, Minne HW et al (1991) Spine deformity index versus other objective procedures of vertebral fracture identification in patients with osteoporosis: A comparative study. J Bone Miner Res 6:227–238

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD (1992) Ability of vertebral dimensions from a single radiograph to identify fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 51:95–99

    Google Scholar 

  29. Smith-Bindman R, Cummings SR, Steiger P, Genant HK (1991) A comparison of morphometric definitions of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 6:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  30. Adami S, Gatti D, Rossini M et al (1992) The radiological assessment of vertebral osteoporosis. Bone 13:S33–S66

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hansen MA, Overgaard K, Nielsen VA et al (1992) No secular increase in the prevalence of vertebral fractures due to postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2:241–246

    Google Scholar 

  32. Melton LJ, Kan SH, Frye MA et al (1989) Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 129:1000–1011

    Google Scholar 

  33. Clark KC (1986) Positioning in radiography. Butterworth-Heinemanns, Oxford, UK

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the scientific and technical support of Ken Faulkner, Ph.D., from GE Medical Systems Lunar. This work was supported in part by a grant from GE Medical Systems Lunar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Binkley.

Additional information

Presented in abstract form at the ASBMR 2002 annual meeting

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Binkley, N., Krueger, D., Gangnon, R. et al. Lateral vertebral assessment: a valuable technique to detect clinically significant vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 16, 1513–1518 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1891-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-005-1891-7

Keywords

Navigation