Skip to main content

The clinical utility of measured kyphosis as a predictor of the presence of vertebral deformities

Osteoporosis International volume 18, pages 621–627 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Summary

Meaured spinal kyphosis, as a predictor of prevalent and incident vertebral deformity, was examined in older women (>70 years) and found to not have sufficient sensitivity or specificity to justify its use as a predictor of present or future vertebral deformity risk.

Introduction

Kyphosis may be attributable to vertebral deformity and was investigated as a clinical tool for predicting the presence and future risk of vertebral deformity.

Methods

Kyphosis was measured in 434 women aged 70 years or older and the kyphosis index (KI) calculated. Prevalent and incident vertebral deformities were assessed by morphometric X-ray absorptiometry (MXA). The predictive value of KI was examined.

Results

Severity of kyphosis was categorised by tertile of KI; 65% of anterior thoracic deformities occurred in the 33% of subjects in the highest (most kyphotic) tertile. Using this tertile as a predictor of anterior thoracic deformity, the probability for a positive test rose from 14% for the whole population to 28% and for a negative test the probability fell to 8%. For any spinal deformity the highest tertile of KI increased the probability of a positive test from 34% to 42% and reduced the probability for a negative test to 30%. The incidence of new deformities was 6% over 4 years; a high KI tertile did not increase the probability of any vertebral deformity.

Conclusions

Severe kyphosis does not increase the probability of detection of a prevalent or incident spinal deformity sufficiently to make it a useful method of selecting patients for further evaluation of spinal deformity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (1986) Involutional osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 314:1676–1686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall SE, Criddle RA, Comito TL, Prince RL (1999) A case-control study of quality of life and funcational impairment in women with long-standing vertebral osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporosis Int 9:508–515

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Cummings SR (1999) Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: a prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arch Intern Med 159:1215–1220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, Jacobsen SJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd (1993) Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures. Am J Epidemiol 137:1001–1005

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA (1999) Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 353:878–882

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Doherty DA, Sanders KM, Kotowicz MA, Prince RL (2001) Lifetime and five-year age-specific risks of first and subsequent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 12:16–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sornay-Rendu E, Munoz F, Garnero P, Duboeuf F, Delmas PD (2005) Identification of osteopenic women at high risk of fracture: the OFELY study. J Bone Miner Res 20:1813–1819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaptoge S, Armbrecht G, Felsenberg D, Lunt M, Weber K, Boonen S, Jajic I, Stepan JJ, Banzer D, Reisinger W, Janott J, Kragl G, Scheidt-Nave C, Felsch B, Matthis C, Raspe HH, Lyritis G, Poor G, Nuti R, Miazgowski T, Hoszowski K, Armas JB, Vaz AL, Benevolenskaya LI, Masaryk P, Cannata JB, Johnell O, Reid DM, Bhalla A, Woolf AD, Todd CJ, Cooper C, Eastell R, Kanis JA, O’Neill TW, Silman AJ, Reeve J (2006) Whom to treat? The contribution of vertebral X-rays to risk-based algorithms for fracture prediction. Results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 17:1369–1381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Holmberg AH, Johnell O, Nilsson PM, Nilsson J, Berglund G, Akesson K (2006) Risk factors for fragility fracture in middle age. A prospective population-based study of 33,000 men and women. Osteoporos Int 17:1065–1077

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang MH, Barrett-Connor E, Greendale GA, Kado DM (2006) Hyperkyphotic posture and risk of future osteoporotic fractures: the Rancho Bernardo study. J Bone Miner Res 21:419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrar L, Jiang G, Barrington NA, Eastell R (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 15:575–585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rea JA, Chen MB, Li J, Blake GM, Steiger P, Genant HK, Fogelman I (2000) Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry and morphometric radiography of the spine: a comparison of prevalent vertebral deformity identification. J Bone Miner Res 15:564–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ross PD (1997) Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med 103:30S–42S; discussion 42S–43S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Edmond SL, Kiel DP, Samelson EJ, Kelly-Hayes M, Felson DT (2005) Vertebral deformity, back symptoms, and functional limitations among older women: the Framingham Study. Osteoporos Int 16:1086–1095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Crans GG, Genant HK, Krege JH (2005) Prognostic utility of a semiquantitative spinal deformity index. Bone 37:175–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Milne JS, Lauder IJ (1976) The relationship of kyphosis to the shape of vertebral bodies. Ann Hum Biol 3:173–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lundon KM, Li AM, Bibershtein S (1998) Interrater and intrarater reliability in the measurement of kyphosis in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Spine 23:1978–1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bruce DG, Devine A, Prince RL (2002) Recreational physical activity levels in healthy older women: the importance of fear of falling. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:84–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ettinger B, Black DM, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Melnikoff S, Cummings SR (1994) Kyphosis in older women and its relation to back pain, disability and osteopenia: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 4:55–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McCloskey EV, Spector TD, Eyres KS, Fern ED, O’Rourke N, Vasikaran S, Kanis JA (1993) The assessment of vertebral deformity: a method for use in population studies and clinical trials. Osteoporos Int 3:138–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Eastell R, Cedel SL, Wahner HW, Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (1991) Classification of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res 6:207–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Melton LJ, Kan SH, Frye MA, Wahner HW, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1989) Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 129:1000–1011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Edmondston SJ, Price RI, Valente B, Singer P (1999) Measurement of vertebral body heights: ex vivo comparisons between morphometric X-ray absorptiometry, morphometric radiography and direct measurements. Osteoporos Int 10:7–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Melton LJ, Lane AW, Cooper C, Eastell R, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1993) Prevalence and incidence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporosis Int 3:113–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Prof. K. Singer suggested the use of the flexible rule to measure kyphosis. This study was supported by research grants from the Healthway Health Promotion Foundation of Western Australia, the Australasian Menopause Society and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (project grant 254627).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    R. L. Prince, A. Devine & I. M. Dick

  2. Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, 1st Floor C Block, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia

    R. L. Prince & I. M. Dick

  3. School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

    A. Devine

Authors
  1. R. L. Prince
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Devine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. M. Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. L. Prince.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prince, R.L., Devine, A. & Dick, I.M. The clinical utility of measured kyphosis as a predictor of the presence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int 18, 621–627 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0289-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-006-0289-5

Keywords

  • Kyphosis
  • Morphometric X-ray absorptiometry
  • Osteoporosis
  • Vertebral deformity