4.6 Article

Bone Microarchitecture Assessed by TBS Predicts Osteoporotic Fractures Independent of Bone Density: The Manitoba Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages 2762-2769

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.499

Keywords

OSTEOPOROSIS; FRACTURE RISK; BONE MINERAL DENSITY; TRABECULAR BONE SCORE; POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The measurement of BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the gold standard for diagnosing osteoporosis but does not directly reflect deterioration in bone microarchitecture. The trabecular bone score (TBS), a novel gray-level texture measurement that can be extracted from DXA images, correlates with 3D parameters of bone microarchitecture. Our aim was to evaluate the ability of lumbar spine TBS to predict future clinical osteoporotic fractures. A total of 29,407 women 50 years of age or older at the time of baseline hip and spine DXA were identified from a database containing all clinical results for the Province of Manitoba, Canada. Health service records were assessed for the incidence of nontraumatic osteoporotic fracture codes subsequent to BMD testing (mean follow-up 4.7 years). Lumbar spine TBS was derived for each spine DXA examination blinded to clinical parameters and outcomes. Osteoporotic fractures were identified in 1668 (5.7%) women, including 439 (1.5%) spine and 293 (1.0%) hip fractures. Significantly lower spine TBS and BMD were identified in women with major osteoporotic, spine, and hip fractures (all p < 0.0001). Spine TBS and BMD predicted fractures equally well, and the combination was superior to either measurement alone (p < 0.001). Spine TBS predicts osteoporotic fractures and provides information that is independent of spine and hip BMD. Combining the TBS trabecular texture index with BMD incrementally improves fracture prediction in postmenopausal women. (C) 2011 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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