Comparative Analysis of the Radiology of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures in Women and Men: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Observations from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos).

We compared two methods for osteoporotic vertebral fracture (VF) assessment on lateral spine radiographs, the Genant semiquantitative (GSQ) technique and a modified algorithm-based qualitative (mABQ) approach. We evaluated 4465 women and 1771 men aged ≥50 years from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study with available X-ray images at baseline. Observer agreement was lowest for grade 1 VFs determined by GSQ. Among physician readers, agreement was greater for VFs diagnosed by mABQ (ranging from 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-1.00] to 0.88 [0.76-1.00]) than by GSQ (ranging from 0.38 [0.17-0.60] to 0.69 [0.54-0.85]). GSQ VF prevalence (16.4% [95% CI 15.4-17.4]) and incidence (10.2/1000 person-years [9.2; 11.2]) were higher than with the mABQ method (prevalence 6.7% [6.1-7.4] and incidence 6.3/1000 person-years [5.5-7.1]). Women had more prevalent and incident VFs relative to men as defined by mABQ but not as defined by GSQ. Prevalent GSQ VFs were predominantly found in the mid-thoracic spine, whereas prevalent mABQ and incident VFs by both methods co-localized to the junction of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Prevalent mABQ VFs compared with GSQ VFs were more highly associated with reduced adjusted L1 to L4 bone mineral density (BMD) (-0.065 g/cm2 [-0.087 to -0.042]), femoral neck BMD (-0.051 g/cm2 [-0.065 to -0.036]), and total hip BMD (-0.059 g/cm2 [-0.076 to -0.041]). Prevalent mABQ VFs compared with prevalent GSQ were also more highly associated with incident VF by GSQ (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3 [2.2-5.0]), incident VF by mABQ (9.0 [5.3-15.3]), and incident non-vertebral major osteoporotic fractures (1.9 [1.2-3.0]). Grade 1 mABQ VFs, but not grade 1 GSQ VFs, were associated with incident non-vertebral major osteoporotic fractures (OR = 3.0 [1.4-6.5]). We conclude that defining VF by mABQ is preferred to the use of GSQ for clinical assessments. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Audit of Atypical Femoral Fractures and a Description of Some of Their Features.

PURPOSE: Atypical femoral fractures (AFF) are recently described events related to osteoporosis and, potentially, a rare result of antiresorptive treatment. METHODS: We set out to audit the diagnosis of AFF in an acute hospital. Charts and radiographs were reviewed retrospectively from patients diagnosed with subtrochanteric femoral fractures according to hospital discharge coding at Vancouver General Hospital (VGH), Canada, from January 2005 to March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 3084 patients were discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of hip fracture between 2005 and 2013. Of these, 204 were coded as having had subtrochanteric fractures; 178 of the patients thus coded had radiographic evidence of other fracture types-usually intertrochanteric fractures. Eleven patients did not have available radiographs. Of the remaining 193 patients whose radiographs were reviewed, 24 (12.4%) fulfilled the published criteria for AFF. OUR OBSERVATIONS WERE: 1) laterality: 13 of 24 AFF (54.2%) were right-sided; 2) there was only one incomplete AFF in this series: a completed fracture was an inclusion criterion, but 1 patient with an AFF had both that fracture and an incomplete fracture and further foci of periosteal or endosteal foci of new bone (PENB) involving the contralateral femur; 3) radiologists had only diagnosed AFF in only 1 of the 24 patients with characteristic radiographic signs of AFF; 4) all but 1 patient had a focus of periosteal and/or endosteal new bone (PENB) through which the fracture line invariably passed, and in the 1 exception the radiography was too poor to be sure of this but there was a symmetrical contralateral focus of PENB; 5) in 19 of 24 patients there was an adequate image of part of the contralateral femur and of these 12 (63%) had a contralateral focus of PENB situated ±2.5 cm from the index lesion site when measured from the upper aspect of the greater trochanter, and in another patient a prior fracture of the contralateral femur had been treated surgically and it was at a symmetrical contralateral location from the index fracture.; 6) in 3 of the 19 patients multiple foci of PENB were detected on the lateral aspect of the contralateral femur even though the examination was of limited extent; and 7) AFFs were associated with bisphosphonate medication in 75% of the patients studied. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital discharge coding misclassified a great majority of femoral fractures as subtrochanteric. As an essential criteria for diagnosing AFF is their subtrochanteric location, this misclassification impaired our ability to retrospectively search for AFF patients. Radiologists tended not to report AFF when typical radiographic characteristics were present. Bilateral and multifocal disease is of interest in pointing to the diagnosis and in suggesting that the mechanism of injury in respect of these unusual fractures is more complex than simple low-energy trauma.

The Radiology of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures Redux.

When a low-energy fracture occurs, then osteoporosis has progressed to the point of bony structural failure. Because vertebral fractures are the commonest type of osteoporotic fracture, the correct identification of them becomes important for diagnosis, risk estimation, and management. However, there are no uniformly agreed criteria for their diagnosis. The purpose of this review was to examine the diagnostic radiological strategies available and suggest a coherent approach to diagnosis. Diagnosis had come to focus on comparative changes in vertebral dimensions. However, it has become apparent that mild reductions in vertebral height are of uncertain implication. The importance of structural damage in diagnosis has become recognized in parallel. Relative reductions in vertebral height may not be a necessary nor sufficient criterion by which to diagnose a fracture.