Current Osteoporosis Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 198–204

Biomechanics of Vertebral Fractures and the Vertebral Fracture Cascade



Vertebral fractures (VFxs) are the most common osteoporotic fracture, and are a strong risk factor for future fracture. The presence of a VFx greatly increases the risk of sustaining subsequent VFxs—a phenomenon often referred to as the “vertebral fracture cascade.” VFxs do not occur uniformly along the spine, but occur more often at the mid-thoracic and thoracolumbar regions than elsewhere. It is likely that both the vertebral fracture cascade and the bimodal distribution of VFx along the spine are attributable to biomechanical factors. VFxs occur when the forces applied to the vertebral body exceed its strength. Loading on the spine is primarily determined by a person’s height, weight, muscle forces, and the task or movement performed, but can also be affected by other factors, such as spinal curvature and invertebral disk deterioration. Vertebral strength is determined mainly by bone size, shape, and bone mineral density, and secondarily by bone microarchitecture, collagen characteristics, and microdamage. Better understanding of VFx etiology is hampered by the fact that most VFxs do not come to clinical attention; therefore, the factors and activities that cause VFxs remain ill defined, including possible differences in the etiology of acute fractures versus those of slow onset. Additional research is needed to elucidate the precise mechanical, morphologic, and biological mechanisms that underlie VFx to improve strategies for assessing VFx risk and preventing the vertebral fracture cascade.


Vertebral fracture Vertebral strength Spinal loading Biomechanics Intervertebral disc degeneration Spinal curvature Kyphosis 


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:• Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Melton LJ 3 rd, Lane AW, Cooper C, et al.: Prevalence and incidence of vertebral deformities. Osteoporos Int 1993, 3:113–119.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, et al.: Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 2000, 15:721–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delmas PD, Genant HK, Crans GG, et al.: Severity of prevalent vertebral fractures and the risk of subsequent vertebral and nonvertebral fractures: results from the MORE trial. Bone 2003, 33:522–532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs AM, Greig AM, Wark JD: The vertebral fracture cascade in osteoporosis: a review of aetiopathogenesis. Osteoporos Int 2007, 18:575–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, et al.: Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 2001, 285:320–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ismail AA, Cooper C, Felsenberg D, et al.: Number and type of vertebral deformities: epidemiological characteristics and relation to back pain and height loss. European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group. Osteoporos Int 1999, 9:206–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van der Klift M, De Laet CE, McCloskey EV, et al.: The incidence of vertebral fractures in men and women: the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 2002, 17:1051–1056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briggs AM, van Dieen JH, Wrigley TV, et al.: Thoracic kyphosis affects spinal loads and trunk muscle force. Phys Ther 2007, 87:595–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eckstein F, Fischbeck M, Kuhn V, et al.: Determinants and heterogeneity of mechanical competence throughout the thoracolumbar spine of elderly women and men. Bone 2004, 35:364–374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burklein D, Lochmuller E, Kuhn V, et al.: Correlation of thoracic and lumbar vertebral failure loads with in situ vs. ex situ dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Biomech 2001, 34:579–587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Myers ER, Wilson SE: Biomechanics of osteoporosis and vertebral fracture. Spine 1997, 22(24 Suppl):25 S–31 S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouxsein ML, Melton LJ 3 rd, Riggs BL, et al.: Age- and sex-specific differences in the factor of risk for vertebral fracture: a population-based study using QCT. J Bone Miner Res 2006, 21:1475–1482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Melton LJ 3 rd, Riggs BL, Keaveny TM, et al.: Relation of vertebral deformities to bone density, structure and strength. J Bone Miner Res 2010 Jun 8 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3 rd: Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 1992, 7:221–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel U, Skingle S, Campbell GA, et al.: Clinical profile of acute vertebral compression fractures in osteoporosis. Br J Rheumatol 1991, 30:418–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Freitas SS, Barrett-Connor E, Ensrud KE, et al.: Rate and circumstances of clinical vertebral fractures in older men. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:615–623. This study reports activities associated with clinical vertebral fractures in the MrOS (Osteoporotic Fractures in Men) study, reporting that 74% of fractures were associated with either no or mild trauma. A total of 57% of vertebral fractures were associated with a fall, highlighting the important role of falls in VFxs. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Polga DJ, Beaubien BP, Kallemeier PM, et al.: Measurement of in vivo intradiscal pressure in healthy thoracic intervertebral discs. Spine 2004 (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1320–1324.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adams MA, Dolan P: Spine biomechanics. J Biomech 2005, 38:1972–1983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schultz A, Andersson G, Ortengren R, et al.: Loads on the lumbar spine. Validation of a biomechanical analysis by measurements of intradiscal pressures and myoelectric signals. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982, 64:713–720.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGill S: Electromyographic activity of the abdominal and low back musculature during the generation of isometric and dynamic axial trunk torque: implications for lumbar mechanics. J Orthop Res 1991, 9:91–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iyer S, Christiansen BA, Roberts BJ, et al.: A biomechanical model for estimating loads on thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2010 Jul 22 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marras WS, Jorgensen MJ, Granata KP, Wiand B: Female and male trunk geometry: size and prediction of the spine loading trunk muscles derived from MRI. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2001, 16:38–46.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lochmuller EM, Burklein D, Kuhn V, et al.: Mechanical strength of the thoracolumbar spine in the elderly: prediction from in situ dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, quantitative computed tomography (QCT), upper and lower limb peripheral QCT, and quantitative ultrasound. Bone 2002, 31:77–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Fields AJ, Eswaran SK, Jekir MG, Keaveny TM: Role of trabecular microarchitecture in whole-vertebral body biomechanical behavior. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:1523–1530. These authors used FEA based on high-resolution μCT images of human thoracic vertebrae, and demonstrated that addition of trabecular microarchitecture measurements to bone mineral content significantly improved the prediction of whole vertebral stiffness. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eswaran SK, Gupta A, Adams MF, Keaveny TM: Cortical and trabecular load sharing in the human vertebral body. J Bone Miner Res 2006, 21:307–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roux JP, Wegrzyn J, Arlot ME, et al.: Contribution of trabecular and cortical components to biomechanical behavior of human vertebrae: an ex vivo study. J Bone Miner Res 2010, 25:356–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yerramshetty J, Kim DG, Yeni YN: Increased microstructural variability is associated with decreased structural strength but with increased measures of structural ductility in human vertebrae. J Biomech Eng 2009, 131:094501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Wegrzyn J, Roux JP, Arlot ME, et al.: Role of trabecular microarchitecture and its heterogeneity parameters in the mechanical behavior of ex-vivo human L3 vertebrae. J Bone Miner Res 2010 Jun 18 [Epub ahead of print]. aBMD, trabecular microarchitecture, and compressive strength were assessed in human lumbar vertebrae. Bone mass (BMD or bone volume/total volume) in combination with microarchitecture and its heterogeneity improved the prediction of vertebral mechanical behavior, together explaining up to 86% of the variability in vertebral failure load. These findings indicate that regional variation of microarchitecture assessment expressed by heterogeneity parameters may enhance prediction of VFx risk. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    •• Sornay-Rendu E, Cabrera-Bravo JL, Boutroy S, et al.: Severity of vertebral fractures is associated with alterations of cortical architecture in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:737–743. This study measured trabecular and cortical architecture in vivo at the distal radius and distal tibia in postmenopausal women using hr-pQCT. Among women with VFx, reduced cortical thickness and cortical density were associated with increasing severity and number of VFxs, even after adjusting for age and spine BMD. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crawford RP, Cann CE, Keaveny TM: Finite element models predict in vitro vertebral body compressive strength better than quantitative computed tomography. Bone 2003, 33:744–750.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morgan EF, Bouxsein ML: Use of finite element analysis to assess bone strength. BoneKEy-Osteovision 2005, 2:8–19.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Faulkner K, Cann C, Hasedawa B: Effect of bone distribution on vertebral strength: assessment with a patient-specific nonlinear finite element analysis. Radiology 1991, 179:669–674.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keaveny TM, Donley DW, Hoffmann PF, et al.: Effects of teriparatide and alendronate on vertebral strength as assessed by finite element modeling of QCT scans in women with osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 2007, 22:149–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chevalier Y, Quek E, Borah B, et al.: Biomechanical effects of teriparatide in women with osteoporosis treated previously with alendronate and risedronate: results from quantitative computed tomography-based finite element analysis of the vertebral body. Bone 2010, 46:41–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Graeff C, Chevalier Y, Charlebois M, et al.: Improvements in vertebral body strength under teriparatide treatment assessed in vivo by finite element analysis: results from the EUROFORS study. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:1672–1680. This study reported that increases in vertebral strength, assessed by QCT-based FEA, following teriparatide treatment were larger than increases in aBMD by DXA or vBMD by QCT. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Imai K, Ohnishi I, Matsumoto T, et al.: Assessment of vertebral fracture risk and therapeutic effects of alendronate in postmenopausal women using a quantitative computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element method. Osteoporos Int 2009, 20:801–810.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Matsumoto T, Ohnishi I, Bessho M, et al.: Prediction of vertebral strength under loading conditions occurring in activities of daily living using a computed tomography-based nonlinear finite element method. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:1464–1469.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chevalier Y, Pahr D, Zysset PK: The role of cortical shell and trabecular fabric in finite element analysis of the human vertebral body. J Biomech Eng 2009, 131:111003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McDonald K, Little J, Pearcy M, Adam C: Development of a multi-scale finite element model of the osteoporotic lumbar vertebral body for the investigation of apparent level vertebra mechanics and micro-level trabecular mechanics. Med Eng Phys 2010, 32:653–661.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zeinali A, Hashemi B, Akhlaghpoor S: Noninvasive prediction of vertebral body compressive strength using nonlinear finite element method and an image based technique. Phys Med 2010, 26:88–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Melton LJ 3 rd, Atkinson EJ, Cooper C, et al.: Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures. Osteoporos Int 1999, 10:214–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ross PD, Genant HK, Davis JW, et al.: Predicting vertebral fracture incidence from prevalent fractures and bone density among non-black, osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 1993, 3:120–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Briggs AM, Wrigley TV, van Dieen JH, et al.: The effect of osteoporotic vertebral fracture on predicted spinal loads in vivo. Eur Spine J 2006, 15:1785–1795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ward KA, Caulton JM, Adams JE, Mughal MZ: Perspective: cerebral palsy as a model of bone development in the absence of postnatal mechanical factors. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2006, 6:154–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pollintine P, Dolan P, Tobias JH, Adams MA: Intervertebral disc degeneration can lead to “stress-shielding” of the anterior vertebral body: a cause of osteoporotic vertebral fracture? Spine 2004, 29:774–782.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sornay-Rendu E, Munoz F, Duboeuf F, Delmas PD: Disc space narrowing is associated with an increased vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women: the OFELY Study. J Bone Miner Res 2004, 19:1994–1999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lang T, Streeper T, Cawthon P, et al.: Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment. Osteoporos Int 2010, 21:543–559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Larsson L, Grimby G, Karlsson J: Muscle strength and speed of movement in relation to age and muscle morphology. J Appl Physiol 1979, 46:451–456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thelen DG, Ashton-Miller JA, Schultz AB, Alexander NB: Do neural factors underlie age differences in rapid ankle torque development? J Am Geriatr Soc 1996, 44:804–808.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Granata KP, Lee PE, Franklin TC: Co-contraction recruitment and spinal load during isometric trunk flexion and extension. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2005, 20:1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUC Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations