4.6 Review

Fracture Risk Assessment An Update

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
卷 103, 期 13, 页码 1238-1246

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.20.01071

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advancements in clinical data and tools have improved our ability to identify individuals at high fracture risk. DXA and TBS are important screening tools, and fracture risk assessment tools can further aid in identifying high-risk patients.
Our ability to accurately identify high fracture risk in individuals has improved as the volume of clinical data has expanded and fracture risk assessment tools have been developed. Given its accessibility, affordability, and low radiation exposure, dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) remains the standard for osteoporosis screening and monitoring response to treatment. The trabecular bone score (TBS) is a DXA software add-on that uses lumbar spine DXA imaging to produce an output that correlates with bone microarchitecture. It has been identified as an independent fracture risk factor and may prove useful in further stratifying fracture risk among those with a bone mineral density (BMD) in the osteopenic range (-1.0 to -2.4 standard deviations), in those with low-energy fractures but normal or only mildly low BMD, or in those with conditions known to impair bone microarchitecture. Fracture risk assessment tools, including the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), Garvan fracture risk calculator, and QFracture, evaluate the impact of multiple clinical factors on fracture risk, even in the absence of BMD data. Each produces an absolute fracture risk output over a defined interval of time. When used appropriately, these enhance our ability to identify high-risk patients and allow us to differentiate fracture risk among patients who present with similar BMDs. For challenging clinical cases, a combined approach is likely to improve accuracy in the identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from the available osteoporosis therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据