4.6 Review

Vertebral Fractures: Clinical Importance and Management

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 129, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.09.020

Keywords

Diagnosis; Fracture; Osteoporosis; Treatment; Vertebral

Funding

  1. Amgen
  2. Astelis
  3. AstraZenika
  4. Eli Lilly
  5. Novartis
  6. Merck
  7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  8. Pure North S'Energy Foundation
  9. Gilead Sciences
  10. GSK
  11. Boehringer Ingelheim
  12. Immunodiagnostics
  13. Merck Serrano
  14. Novo Nordisk
  15. Radius Pharma
  16. Roche Diagnostics
  17. Takeda

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vertebral fractures are common and can result in acute and chronic pain, decreases in quality of life, and diminished lifespan. The identification of vertebral fractures is important because they are robust predictors of future fractures. The majority of vertebral fractures do not come to clinical attention. Numerous modalities exist for visualizing suspected vertebral fracture. Although differing definitions of vertebral fracture may present challenges in comparing data between different investigations, at least 1 in 5 men and women aged >50 years have one or more vertebral fractures. There is clinical guidance to target spine imaging to individuals with a high probability of vertebral fracture. Radiology reports of vertebral fracture need to clearly state that the patient has a fracture, with further pertinent details such as the number, recency, and severity of vertebral fracture, each of which is associated with risk of future fractures. Patients with vertebral fracture should be considered for antifracture therapy. Physical and pharmacologic modalities of pain control and exercises or physiotherapy to maintain spinal movement and strength are important components in the care of vertebral fracture patients. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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