Search

Osteoporotic fractures, also known as fragility fractures, are reflective of compromised bone strength and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Such fractures may be clinically silent, and others may present clinically with pain and deformity at the time of the injury. Unfortunately, and even at the time of detection, most individuals sustaining fragility fractures are not identified as having underlying metabolic bone disease and are not evaluated or treated to reduce the incidence of future fractures. A multidisciplinary international working group with representation from international societies dedicated to advancing the care of patients with metabolic bone disease has developed best practice recommendations for the diagnosis and evaluation of individuals with fragility fractures. A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to identify key articles on fragility fractures and their impact on the incidence of further fractures, morbidity, and mortality. This document represents consensus among the supporting societies and harmonizes best practice recommendations consistent with advances in research. A fragility fracture in an adult is an important predictor of future fractures and requires further evaluation and treatment of the underlying osteoporosis. It is important to recognize that most fragility fractures occur in patients with bone mineral density T scores higher than -2.5, and these fractures confirm the presence of skeletal fragility even in the presence of a well-maintained bone mineral density. Fragility fractures require further evaluation with exclusion of contributing factors for osteoporosis and assessment of clinical risk factors for fracture followed by appropriate pharmacological intervention designed to reduce the risk of future fracture. Because most low-trauma vertebral fractures do not present with pain, dedicated vertebral imaging and review of past imaging is useful in identifying fractures in patients at high risk for vertebral fractures. Given the importance of fractures in confirming skeletal fragility and predicting future events, it is recommended that an established classification system be used for fracture identification and reporting., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Purpose: Morphometric methods categorize potential osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) on the basis of loss of vertebral height. A particular example is the widely used semiquantitative morphometric tool proposed by Genant (GSQ). A newer morphologic algorithm-based qualitative (mABQ) tool focuses on vertebral end-plate damage in recognizing OVF. We used data from both sexes in the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) to compare the 2 methods in identifying OVF at baseline and during 10 years of follow-up., Materials and Methods: We obtained lateral thoracic and lumbar spinal radiographs (T4-L4) 3 times, at 5-year intervals, in 828 participants of the population-based CaMos. Logistic regressions were used to study the association of 10-year changes in bone mineral density (BMD) with incident fractures., Results: At baseline, 161 participants had grade 1 and 32 had grade 2 GSQ OVF; over the next 10 years, only 9 of these participants had sustained incident GSQ OVF. Contrastingly, 21 participants at baseline had grade 1 and 48 grade 2 mABQ events; over the next 10 years, 79 subjects experienced incident grade 1 or grade 2 mABQ events. Thus, incident grades 1 and 2 morphologic fractures were 8 times more common than morphometric deformities alone. Each 10-year decrease of 0.01 g/cm 2 in total hip BMD was associated with a 4.1% (95% CI: 0.7-7.3) higher odds of having an incident vertebral fracture., Conclusions: This analysis further suggests that morphometric deformities and morphologic fractures constitute distinct entities; morphologic fractures conform more closely to the expected epidemiology of OVF.

Parity and lactation showed no associations with incident clinical fragility fractures or radiographic vertebral compression fractures in the 16-year CaMos prospective study. Parity was associated with slightly greater decline in femoral neck but not hip or spine areal bone mineral density (aBMD), while lactation showed no associations with aBMD change., Purpose: Pregnancy and especially lactation cause loss of bone mass and microarchitectural changes, which temporarily increase fracture risk. After weaning, aBMD increases but skeletal microarchitecture may be incompletely restored. Most retrospective clinical studies found neutral or even protective associations of parity and lactation with fragility fractures, but prospective data are sparse. CaMos is a randomly selected observational cohort that includes ~ 6500 women followed prospectively for over 16 years., Methods: We determined whether parity or lactation were related to incident clinical fragility fractures over 16 years, radiographic (morphometric and morphologic) vertebral fractures over 10 years, and aBMD change (spine, total hip, and femoral neck) over 10 years. Parity and lactation duration were analyzed as continuous variables in predicting these outcomes using univariate and multivariate regression analyses., Results: Three thousand four hundred thirty-seven women completed 16 years of follow-up for incident clinical fractures, 3839 completed 10 years of morphometric vertebral fracture assessment, 3788 completed 10 years of morphologic vertebral fracture assessment, and 4464 completed 10 years of follow-up for change in aBMD. In the multivariate analyses, parity and lactation duration showed no associations with clinical fragility fractures, radiographic vertebral fractures, or change in aBMD, except that parity associated with a probable chance finding of a slightly greater decline in femoral neck aBMD., Conclusions: Parity and lactation have no adverse associations with clinical fragility or radiographic vertebral fractures, or the rate of BMD decline over 10 years, in this prospective, multicenter study of a randomly selected, population-based cohort of women.

Until recently there has been little evidence available to validate any method by which to make an accurate diagnosis of an osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) from plain radiographs. In part this reflects a lack of a completely satisfactory "gold standard," but primarily it relates to the absence of well-designed prospective studies in this context. Historically, OVFs were recognized by evidence of macroscopic structural failure in vertebrae using the criteria applied elsewhere in the skeleton. This comprised altered alignment, fragmentation, cortical disruptions, and breaks, among other changes. However, these morphological criteria were replaced by vertebral morphometry, referring to the use of quantitative or quasi-quantitative measurement tools for fracture diagnosis. Vertebral morphometry emerged as an understanding of and treatment for osteoporosis evolved, mainly in response to the need for expeditious assessments of large numbers of spine images for epidemiological and pharmaceutical purposes. Although most of the descriptions of such morphometric tools have stressed that they were not to be applied to clinical diagnosis with respect to individual patients, this constraint has been widely disregarded. Here we review the major attempts to develop a diagnostic strategy for OVF and describe their characteristics in adults and children. Recent evidence suggests that morphometric (quantitative; ie, based on measurement of dimensions and shape description) criteria are inferior to morphologic (qualitative; ie, based on structural integrity) vertebral damage assessment in identifying people with low bone density and at an increased risk of future fracture. Thus there is now an evidentiary basis for suggesting that morphological assessment is the preferred strategy for use in diagnosing OVF from radiographs. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research., (© 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)