Calcaneus ultrasonometry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for the evaluation of vertebral fracture risk.

The aim of this retrospective, cross-sectional, controlled, non-population-based study was to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of quantitative ultrasonometry (QUS) of the heel and of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the prediction of morphometric vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women and to establish whether the combination of the two devices could improve the capacity to identify the presence of vertebral fracture. Also, we tried to identify the best T-score threshold for high risk of vertebral fracture for both QUS and DXA, highlighting the discrepancies between the two methodologies and between the various sites examined with DXA. From 6,300 patients examined by DXA (total body, lumbar spine, total femur, femoral neck), QUS and DXA vertebral morphometry (MXA), we selected 764 postmenopausal women with nontraumatic vertebral fractures; 770 postmenopausal women with normal morphometry were chosen as a control group. Logistic regression analysis yielded odds ratios (ORs) for bone mineral density (BMD) measurements and QUS that were comparable: BMD-total body 4.16, BMD-lumbar spine 4.80, BMD-total femur 3.77, BMD-femoral neck 3.86, and QUS 4.41, without statistical differences even after correction for different confounding variables (menopausal years, weight, height, body mass index, and age). The ORs obtained from different combinations of QUS and DXA results did not show statistically significant differences compared to those from a single method alone. The sensitivity and specificity of all measurements were determined by area using the receiver operating characteristic curve; these were 0.94 for total body, 0.95 for lumbar spine, 0.86 for total femur, 0.89 for femoral neck, and 0.93 for QUS, without statistical difference. The areas under the curve obtained from the combination of QUS and DXA were higher but without statistical significance compared to QUS alone. In conclusion, both QUS and DXA were able to discriminate women with fracture from women without fracture and independently contributed to determining the association with fracture. The combination of QUS and BMD did not improve the diagnostic ability of either individual technique. We found different diagnostic thresholds for QUS and DXA.

Diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystal deposition disease: ultrasonographic criteria proposed.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate by high frequency ultrasonography the appearance of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate (CPPD) calcifications, in the most commonly affected sites in CPPD disease, and the relationship between ultrasonographic CPPD deposits and the presence of CPPD crystals in synovial fluid. METHODS: Three ultrasonographic patterns of CPPD calcification were identified and 11 patients enrolled. A control group comprised 13 patients with no evidence of CPPD deposits. Synovial fluid was aspirated from all patients and controls and examined for identification of crystals. All patients underwent a standard radiography examination at the same sites investigated by ultrasound. RESULTS: In all patients with ultrasonographically defined CPPD deposits, CPPD crystals were found in the synovial fluid. In two cases, standard radiographic examination did not show evidence of the calcific deposits that were identified by ultrasonography. CPPD crystals were not found in the synovial fluid of controls. In four control group patients, ultrasonography identified calcifications defined as deposits of another nature. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasonographic pattern used in this study for the diagnosis of CPPD disease demonstrated a very high correlation with the presence of CPPD crystals in synovial fluid. Ultrasonography demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity at least equal to that of radiography in identifying CPPD crystal calcifications.