4.6 Article

Local Bone Mineral Density, Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue Measurements in Routine Multi Detector Computed Tomography-Which Parameter Predicts Incident Vertebral Fractures Best?

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020240

Keywords

incident vertebral fractures; CT; BMD; osteoporosis; SAT; VAT

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [432290010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that measuring bone mineral density at specific vertebral levels in multi-detector computed tomography examinations is more suitable for predicting the risk of vertebral fractures compared to standard average BMD measurements.
In this case-control study the value of bone mineral density (BMD) at different vertebral levels, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) to identify patients with incident osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) exams was assessed. Material and methods: Seventeen patients who underwent baseline and follow-up routine contrast-enhanced MDCT and had an incident osteoporotic vertebral fracture at follow-up were included. Seventeen age-, sex- and follow-up duration-matched controls were identified. Trabecular BMD (from Th5 to L5) as well as cross-sectional area of SAT and VAT were extracted. Results: BMD performed best to differentiate patients with an incident fracture from controls at the levels of Th5 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.781, p = 0.014), Th7 (AUC = 0.877, p = 0.001), and Th9 (AUC = 0.818, p = 0.005). Applying multivariate logistic regression BMD at Th7 level remained the only significant predictor of incident vertebral fractures (Th5-L5) with an odds ratio of 1.07 per BMD SD decrease. VAT and SAT did not show significant differences between the fracture and control group (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The local BMD measurement appears to be more suitable than standard mean BMD from L1-L3 for fracture risk assessment.

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