4.6 Article

Repeat Low-Trauma Fractures Occur Frequently Among Men and Women Who Have Osteopenic BMD

Journal

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 1515-1522

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.090319

Keywords

osteoporosis; fracture; epidemiology; Canada; distribution; age; men; women; low-trauma fracture; BMD

Funding

  1. CIHR [88225-1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fracture risk assessment based solely on BMD has limitations. Additional risk factors include the presence of a previous low-trauma fracture. We sought to quantify the fracture burden attributable to first versus repeat fracture. We studied 2179 men and 5269 women, 50-90 yr of age, participating in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). We included all low-trauma fractures that occurred over 8 yr of follow-up and classified these as either first or repeat clinical low-trauma fracture based on lifetime fracture history. Analyses were further stratified by sex, age, BMD risk categories (normal, osteopenia, osteoporosis), and vertebral deformity status. There were 128 fractures in men and 577 fractures in women. About 25% of fractures in men and 40% in women were repeat fractures. Just over one half of first fractures occurred in those with osteopenic BMD (58% in men, 54% in women). Just under one half of repeat fractures also occurred in those with osteopenic B M D (42% in men, 47% in women). The incidence of repeat fracture was, in most cases, nearly double, but sometimes nearly quadruple, the incidence of first fracture within a given BMD risk category in both men and women. Repeat fractures contribute substantially to overall fracture burden, and the contribution is independent of BMD. Furthermore, those with a combination of prior low-trauma fracture and another risk factor were at especially high risk of future fracture. J Bone Miner Res 2009;24:1515-1522. Published online on March 30, 2009; doi: 10.1359/JBMR.090319

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available