Osteoporosis International

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 43–49 | Cite as

The impact of degenerative conditions in the spine on bone mineral density and fracture risk prediction

  • P. von der Recke1
  • M. A. Hansen
  • K. Overgaard
  • C. Christiansen
Original Article

Abstract

We examined the impact of degenerative conditions in the spine (osteophytosis and endplate sclerosis) and aortic calcification in the lumbar region on bone mineral content/density (BMC/BMD) measured in the spine and forearm by absorptiometry and on fracture risk prediction. The radiographs of 387 healthy postmenopausal women, aged 68–72 years, were assessed in masked fashion for the presence of osteophytosis, endplate sclerosis and aortic calcification in the region from L2 to L4. Vertebral deformities/fractures were assessed by different definitions. Osteophytes larger than 3 mm and in numbers of 3 or more resulted in a significantly (12%) higher spinal bone mass (p<0.001). Endplate sclerosis had a similar effect (p<0.001). In subjects with both degenerative conditions the BMC/BMD in the spine and forearm were significantly higher than in unaffected women (19% in the spine, 10% in the forearm;p<0.001). The spinal BMD values were significantly lower in fractured women if both degenerative conditions were absent (p<0.001), whereas fractured and unfractured women had similar values if degenerative conditions were present. Degenerative conditions did not alter the ability of forearm BMC to discriminate vertebral or peripheral fractures. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (true positive fraction versus false positive fraction) were generated for BMD of the lumbar spine and BMC of the forearm with regard to the discrimination between women with vertebral and peripheral fractures and healthy premenopausal women. The ROC curves for women without degenerative conditins were consistently above the curves for women affected by osteophytosis and endplate sclerosis in the lumbar spine (p<0.001). In conclusion, osteophytes and endplate sclerosis have a considerable influence on spinal bone mass measurements in elderly postmenopausal women and affect the diagnostic ability of spinal scans to discriminate osteoporotic women. Our data suggest that in elderly women, unless the spine is radiologically clear of degenerative conditions, a peripheral measurement procedure should be considered an alternative for assessment of bone mineral content/ensity.

Keywords

Bone densitometry Degenerative conditions Fracture risk Osteophytosis Osteoporosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Parfitt AM. Physiological and clinical significance of bone histomorphometric data. In: Recker RR, editor. Bone histomorphometry: techniques and interpretation. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1983:143–223.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melton LJ III. Epidemiology of fractures. In: Riggs BL, Melton LJ III, editors. Osteoporosis: etiology, diagnosis and management. New York: Raven Press, 1988:133–54.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wasnich RD, Davis JW, Ross PD. Spine fracture risk is predicted by non-spine fractures. Osteoporosis Int 1994;4:1–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orwoll ES, Oviatt SK, Mann T. The impact of osteophytic and vascular calcifications on vertebral mineral density measurements in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1990;70:1202–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drinka PJ, DeSmet AA, Bauwens SF, Rogot A. The effect of overlying calcification on lumbar bone densitometry. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;50:507–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reid IR, Evans MC, Ames R, Wattie DJ. The influence of osteophytes and aortic calcification on spinal mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1991;72:1372–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masud T, Langley S, Wiltshire P, Doyle DV, Spector TD. Effect of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis. BMJ 1993;307:172–3.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawson Hughes B, Dellal GB. Effect of radiographic abnormalities on rate of bone loss for the spine. Calcif Tissue Int 1990;46:280–1.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lie JT. The structure of the normal vascular system and its reactive changes. In: Jüergens JL, Spittell JA Jr, Fairbaim JF, editors. Peripheral vascular diseases. Philadelphia: Saunders 1980:65.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silver MD. Cardiovascular pathology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1983:252.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Overgaard K, Hansen MA, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Discriminatory ability of bone mass measurements (SPA and DEXA) for fractures in elderly postmenopausal women. Calcif Tissue Int 1992;50:30–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleerekoper M, Parfitt AM, Ellis BI. Measurement of vertebral fracture rates in osteoporosis. In: Osteoporosis: proceedings of the International Symposium on Osteoporosis. Copenhagen, Denmark: Aalborg Stiftsbogtrykkeri, 1984:103–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Melton LJ III, Kan SH, Frye MA, Wahner HW, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:1000–11.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansen MA, Hassager C, Overgaard K, Marslew U, Riis BJ, Christiansen C. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: a precise method of measuring bone mineral density in the lumbar spine. J Nucl Med 1990;31:1156–62.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nilas L, Borg J, Gotfredsen A, Christiansen C. Comparison of single- and dual-photon absorptiometry in postmenopausal bone mineral loss. J Nucl Med 1985;26:1257–62.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978;8:283–98.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNeil BJ, Keeler E, Adelstein SJ. Primer on certain elements of medical decision making. N Engl J Med 1975;293:211–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839–43.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resnick D, Niwayama G. Degeneration disease of the spine. In: Resnick D, Niwayama G, editors. Diagnosis of bone and joint disorder. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1981:1374–80.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pouilles JM, Tremollieres F, Louvet JP, Fournie B, Morlock G, Ribot C. Sensitivity of dual-photon absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int 1988;43:329–34.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cummings SR. Are patients with hip fracture more osteoporotic? Review of the evidence. Am J Med 1985;78:487–94.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gotfredsen A, Pødenphant J, Nilas L, Christiansen C. Discriminatory ability of total body bone-mineral measured by dual photon absorptiometry. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1989;49:125–34.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gevers G, Dequeker J, Geusens P, Nyssen-Behets C, Dhem A. Physical and histomorphological characteristics of iliac crest bone differ according to the grade of osteoarthritis at the hand. Bone 1989;10:173–7.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roh YS, Dequeker J, Mulier JC. Cortical bone remodeling and bone mass in primary osteoarthritis of the hip. Invest Radiol 1973;8:251–4.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wientroub S, Papo J, Ashkenazi M, Tardiman R, Weissman SL, Salama R. Osteoarthritis of the hip and fractures of the proximal femur. Acta Orthop Scand 1982;53:261–4.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dequeker J. The relationship between osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. Clin Rheum Dis 1985;11:271–96.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Banks LM, Lees B, Macsweeney JE, Stevenson JC. Effect of degenerative spinal and aortic calcification on bone density measurements in post-menopausal women: links between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease? Eur J Clin Invest 1994;24:813–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bjarnason K, Hassager C, Ravn P, Christiansen C. Early postmenopausal diminution of forearm and spinal bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study. Osteoporosis Int 1995;5:35–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Foundation for Osteoporosis 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. von der Recke1
    • 1
  • M. A. Hansen
    • 1
  • K. Overgaard
    • 2
  • C. Christiansen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGlostrup HospitalGlostrupDenmark
  2. 2.Center for Clinical & Basic ResearchBallerupDenmark

Personalised recommendations