Journals / Haseki Tıp Bülteni / 2019 / Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 2

Quantitative Analysis of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture Risk on Pre-Existing CT

Önceden Var Olan CT’de Osteoporotik Vertebral Kırık Riskinin Kantitatif Analizi

Pages
185–190
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Using receiver operating characteristics analysis, cutoffpoint values for different levels were determined.Results: CTd measured at each vertebra was significantly lower in thecase group than in controls (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Recent research has shown that the measurement of vertebraebone density on computed tomography for diagnosis of osteoporosisis associated with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Our aim wasto compare vertebra bone density on pre-existing CT images (CTd)between patients with and without osteoporotic vertebral fracture(OVF) for predicting OVF.Methods: Fifty patients with OVF and age and gender-matched 50controls were included in this retrospective case-control study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Using receiver operating characteristics analysis, cutoffpoint values for different levels were determined.Results: CTd measured at each vertebra was significantly lower in thecase group than in controls (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Recent research has shown that the measurement of vertebraebone density on computed tomography for diagnosis of osteoporosisis associated with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Our aim wasto compare vertebra bone density on pre-existing CT images (CTd)between patients with and without osteoporotic vertebral fracture(OVF) for predicting OVF.Methods: Fifty patients with OVF and age and gender-matched 50controls were included in this retrospective case-control study. Allmeasurements were taken from transverse sections passing throughthe center of the vertebrae (L5-T10), and Hounsfield units (HU) valueswere recorded. Using receiver operating characteristics analysis, cutoffpoint values for different levels were determined.Results: CTd measured at each vertebra was significantly lower in thecase group than in controls (p

Özet

Amaç: Son araştırmalar, osteoporoz tanısı için omurga yoğunluğunun bilgisayarlı tomografide (BT) ölçülmesinin, çift enerjili X-ışını absorbsiyometrisi ile ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Bizim amacımız önceden var olan BT’de osteoporotik vertebra kırığını (OVF) tahmin etmek için OVF olan ile olmayan hastalarda omurga yoğunluğunun karşılaştırılmasıdır. Yöntemler: Retrospektif olgu kontrol çalışması, 50 OVF ve 50 kontrol grubu dahil edildi. Kontrol hastaları yaş ve cinsiyet için eşleştirildi. Tüm ölçümler, vertebraların (L5-T10) merkezinden geçen enine kesitlerden alınmış ve Hounsfield birimleri (HU) değeri kaydedilmiştir. Alıcı işletim karakteristiği analizi kullanılarak farklı seviyeler için kesme noktası değerleri belirlendi. Bulgular: Olgu grubunun tüm vertebralarında vertebra yoğunluğu kontrol grubuna göre anlamlı derecede düşüktü (p

🔖

Cite This Article

EKİN, E. E., ALTUNRENDE, M. E. (2022). Quantitative Analysis of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture Risk on Pre-Existing CT. Haseki Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 57 - Sayı: 2, 185–190. https://ajindex.com/articles/535090

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, et al. The prevalence of vertebral deformity in european men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996;11:1010-8.
  2. Melton LJ III, Kan SH, Frye MA, et al. Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:1000-11.
  3. Jackson SA, Tenenhouse A, Robertson L. Vertebral fracture definition from population-based data: preliminary results from the Canadian Multicenter Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 2000;11:680-7.
  4. Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsman PB, et al. Patients with prior fracture have an increased risk of future fracture: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 2000;15:721-39.
  5. Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L, et al. Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Bone Miner Res 1999;14:821- 8. Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 2001;285:320-3.
  6. Gehlbach SH, Fournier M, Bigelow C. Recognition of osteoporosis by primary care physicians. Am J Public Health 2002;92:271-3.
  7. Probst JC, Moore CG, Baxley EG, et al. Osteoporosis recognition correcting Gehlbach et al. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1885 Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, et al. Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:577-82. Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, et al. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res 2005;20:557-63. 11-Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, et al. Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet 1996;348:1535-41.
  8. Cummings SR, Black DM, Thompson DE, et al. Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. JAMA 1998;280:2077-82.
  9. McClung MR, Geusens P, Miller PD, et al; Hip Intervention Program Study Group. Effect of risedronate on the risk of hip fracture in elderly women. Hip Intervention Program Study Group. N Engl J Med 2001;344:333-40.
  10. Lenchik L, Rogers LF, Delmas PD, et al. Diagnosis of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: importance of recognition and description by radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:949-58.
  11. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, et al. Vertebral frac