Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology journal homepage: www.elsevierhealth.com/berh

4

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures Paul Gerdhem, MD, PhD, Associate Professor a, b, * a b

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Vertebral fracture Treatment Epidemiology

The incidence of vertebral fragility fractures and deformity increase steeply with age. Every sixth woman and every twelfth man will sustain a symptomatic vertebral fracture. Vertebral fractures result in pain, functional disability and decreased quality of life, which may last for several years, and may also affect mortality. The patient with an acute fracture should be examined with radiology for diagnosis. In case of a low-energy fracture, osteoporosis should be suspected and investigated. If the pain management fails, vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty could be considered. Braces may be used, but evidence for its effect is lacking. In the rare event of neurological compromise, or unstable fractures, surgical treatment should be considered. After vertebral fragility fractures, the risk for new fractures is high and secondary preventive measures advocated. The best evidence for secondary prevention is currently on medical treatment of osteoporosis. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Vertebral fractures may occur in any part of the spine but are most common in the thoracic and lumbar regions. Vertebral fractures tend to be more common in the transition between a more rigid part of the spine and a more flexible part, such as the transition between the thoracic and lumbar spine but are also common in the mid part of the kyphotic region of the thoracic spine [1,2]. The mechanism and force of injury determines whether a fracture occurs or not. If the force is larger than the skeleton can resist, a fracture occurs. The fracture displacement will be relatively larger when

* Department of Orthopaedics, K54, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, SE 141 86 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: þ46 8 58580000, þ46 736 994409; fax: þ46 8 7114292. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1521-6942/$ – see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.002

744

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

the bone quality is poor. In the osteoporotic vertebra, fracture may occur without any noticeable trauma. About one third of the patients seeking care for acute back pain could not recollect a trauma or other specific incident associated with the occurrence of the vertebral fracture [2]. Although most of these fractures are due to low-energy trauma, individuals with osteoporosis may sustain fracture types that resemble fractures in non-osteoporotic individuals, and individuals with osteoporosis may sustain high-energy fractures. The radiological diagnosis of vertebral fractures may be difficult. Unlike other fractures, the age of a vertebral fracture is not always easy to determine, especially when osteoporosis is part of the etiology. Vertebral fragility fractures may be regarded as a continuum from a next to normal vertebra, to a crush compression fracture, with any degree of deformity in between. It has been estimated that a large proportion of vertebral fractures are asymptomatic and that only 30–40% are discovered in the clinic [3,4]. In a review of thoracic computed tomography scans made for other causes in individuals with a mean age of 61 years, one third had vertebral fractures [5]. There are numerous classifications available for vertebral fractures and vertebral deformity. Prevalence figures vary depending on the classification used [1,6–9]. According to the classification by Genant et al. [6], a vertebral height loss of more than 20% may be considered a fracture. Wedge fractures are the most common type of fracture [10]. Biconcave and crush fractures are more commonly a sign of osteoporosis than wedge fractures (Fig. 1). Computed tomography has a higher sensitivity than plain radiography when diagnosing vertebral fractures [11]. Magnetic resonance imaging is very sensitive when there is a need to determine whether the fracture is acute or not, and is often also the best method to exclude differential diagnoses such as infection and malignancy [12] (Fig. 2). In this review, the term “vertebral fracture” is used for clinically symptomatic vertebral fractures. The term “vertebral deformity” is used for data from population based surveys, which may include non-symptomatic fractures and deformity associated with other disorders, for example Scheuermann’s kyphosis.

The burden of vertebral fractures The incidence of vertebral fracture and deformity increases with age, and varies with country [13]. Low-energy trauma was four times more common in persons 60 years or older sustaining thoracic and lumbar vertebral fractures than in younger persons [14]. Odontoid fractures are among the most

Fig. 1. Illustration of fracture patterns often seen in vertebral fragility fractures. Wedge compression (top), biconcave (middle), crush fracture (bottom).

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

745

common cervical spine fracture in the elderly [15] and the number is increasing [16], possibly due to an increasing elderly population. The incidence of clinical symptomatic fractures increases steeply from the age of 50–80 [17] (Fig. 3). It has been estimated that the life time risk for a symptomatic vertebral fracture for a person of the age of 45 is 15% for a woman and 8% for a man [17]. However, when looking at radiologically defined vertebral deformity the prevalence is similar in men and women [13] or slightly more prevalent in men than in women [18]. The incidence of patients with fractures in the thoracic and lumbar spine treated at hospitals in Sweden has been estimated to 30/100,000 persons per year, with about two thirds of the patients being 60 years or older [14]. The corresponding incidence of cervical spine fractures between 1998 and 2011 was 8/100,000 persons per year, with an incidence of 5/100,000 for those being up to the age of 59 and 20/100,000 for those aged 60 years or older [19]. The number of vertebral fractures in the United States has been estimated be about 700,000 yearly, and the annual cost to be 13.8 billion USD, corresponding to 18,000 USD per vertebral fracture [20,21], but it is likely that the total annual cost is an underestimation due to the large number of undetected vertebral fractures and the changing demography with a larger proportion of elderly. In Sweden, it has been estimated that the fracture related cost for patients hospitalized for vertebral fractures is 12,000 Euros in the first year, which was only slightly lower than the figure for patients with a hip fracture [22]. Clinical presentation A patient with a symptomatic vertebral fracture presents with a more or less sudden onset of pain at the fracture site or close to it. The pain decreases with rest and increases with activity. The pain may involve a severe functional restriction, and especially the elderly may be unable to perform activities of daily living. The pain may occasionally radiate anteriorly. In the case of previous fractures, kyphosis in the thoracic spine may be present and the rib cage very close or even in contact with the iliac crest, which may be associated with pain. Differential diagnoses such as pneumonia, ruptured aortic aneurysm, spondylodiscitis, urinary tract infection, myocardial infarction, and pathological fractures, or other painful malignant processes should be looked for. Many of these can often be confirmed or excluded during history taking and clinical examination. It is uncommon that an osteoporotic thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture affects the spinal cord or nerve roots by retropulsion of parts of the fractured vertebrae. If the patient complains of radiating pain in the legs, sensory loss in the legs, or loss of muscular strength or balance, or urinary or fecal incontinence, an MRI of the spinal column may be indicated and should be performed without delay if there are signs of spinal cord affection. If there is a significant encroachment of the spinal canal, emergency decompressive and stabilising surgery may be indicated (Fig. 4). Surgery in the osteoporotic spine is challenging, and the risk of later failure due to poor bone quality is large. Multiple anchoring points are used and special implants for better purchase in osteoporotic bone are available. Augmentation of the vertebraes with bone cement is sometimes performed to allow better screw purchase [23]. Risk factors Among risk factors for vertebral fracture are high age, prior falls or fractures, smoking, oral glucocorticoids, inactivity, underweight, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatoid arthritis [11] and ankylosing spondylitis [24]. A patient with low back pain after trauma, older age or use of corticosteroids can be considered having “red flags”, which indicate a need to perform diagnostic imaging for the suspicion of a vertebral fracture. A combination of these red flags increases the diagnostic accuracy [25]. Age and previous fracture predict new vertebral fractures independently of bone mineral density. In women with prevalent vertebral deformities, the risk of contracting a new vertebral deformity in a year is about 20% [26,27]. Women with a prevalent vertebral deformity carry a fivefold risk of contracting a

746

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

Fig. 2. Images of an 85-year old woman sustaining acute back pain after a fall indoors. Several deformed vertebrae were seen on the plain x-ray. It was difficult to differentiate acute fractures and older healed fractures (a). Analgesic treatment was insufficient and

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

747

Fracture incidence (rate/1000)

18 16 14 12 10 8 Men

6

Women

4 2

0 50-54 55-69 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 Age groups Fig. 3. The incidence of vertebral fractures coming to clinical attention in Malmö, Sweden. The figure reveals a steep increase in fracture rate with increasing age in both men and women. Adapted from Ref. [17].

new vertebral deformity in a year, with an up to 12-fold risk if two or more previous vertebral deformities exist [27]. Men and women with vertebral fracture or vertebral deformity have an increased risk of sustaining other types of osteoporotic fractures, for example hip fracture [28,29]. A risk increase of 2.3 for hip fracture and 2.8 for any fracture has been reported, when compared to individuals without vertebral fractures [28]. Increased bone turnover [30] and increased high sensitivity CRP have been reported to be risk factors for vertebral fractures [31,32], but their use for fracture prediction in the clinic has not been established. The prevalence of osteoporosis increases with age. The importance of osteoporosis as a contributing cause of fracture increase with higher age [11]. A one standard deviation decrease in bone density, or ultrasound, increases the relative risk for any type of fracture by 1.5. A site specific measurement has an even better predictive ability, and the corresponding relative risk for a measurement in the lumbar spine for vertebral fracture is 2.3 [33]. Even if low bone density is a risk factor for vertebral fractures and deformity, up to half of the fractures occur in non-osteoporotic individuals [34,35]. Outcome of vertebral fractures Pain from a vertebral fracture is initially intense. Recovery is most prominent during the first 3 months. After that period recovery is slow. In a longitudinal cohort study, patients that had visited an emergency unit due to vertebral fracture were followed for a year. The average pain at three weeks was 70 out of a maximum of 100 on a von Korff pain score. The same score was 60 after 12 months [2]. Crush fractures, severely deformed fractures and thoracic fractures had the worst prognosis, with a lower magnitude of improvement than other fractures. Patients with a vertebral fracture had more bodily pain, as determined by the SF-36, both at two months and two years after the fracture, compared to controls from the population [36]. Controls in a trial comparing kyphoplasty and non-surgical care for osteopenic acute vertebral fractures had an initial visual analogue scale back pain (0–10) of 7, which decreased to 4 after one year [37], similar to other trials [38].

injection of bone cement was discussed. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty requires exact localisation of the acute fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging showed oedema in the eleventh thoracic vertebra and the first lumbar vertebra (arrows) indicating acute fractures (b). Kyphoplasty balloons in place in a vertebral body (c and d). X-ray after kyphoplasty of the two vertebraes (e and f). The pain decreased.

748

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

Fig. 4. Computed tomography of a vertebral burst fracture after a same level outdoor fall in a 58-year old woman with previously diagnosed osteoporosis. Images show bulging of the posterior vertebral wall and spinal canal encroachment (a; sagittal image, b; axial image). Clinically the fracture caused L3-nerve root symptoms. A posterior decompression, fusion and stabilisation with pedicle screws and rods was performed (c). Bone quality was poor and bone cement was injected in some of the screw holes.

The reduced quality of life from vertebral fractures has been reported to be persistent for several years, and longer than for other fractures associated with osteoporosis [22,36,39]. The prevalence of previous fractures (vertebral or other osteoporotic fracture) has a negative impact on the effect of quality of life in case of new vertebral fractures [36,40]. Vertebral deformity, i.e. not clinically recognised fractures, are also associated with increased back pain and limitation of function [39]. Vertebral fracture has been associated with a shortened life-span, but is to some extent, but not all, explained by co-morbidity [41–43]. An estimated survival of 61% compared to an expected of 76%, 5 years after a thoracic and lumbar vertebral fracture has been reported [43], with a higher mortality in men than in women [42]. Prevalent vertebral deformity has been reported to be associated with a modest shortened life-span in women, but this excess can at least to some extent be explained by other factors associated with poor health [44–46]. Of patients sustaining an odontoid fracture in the cervical spine and being 65 years or older, 18% were deceased within the first 12 months after the fracture [47].

Pain management Pain management in patients with vertebral fractures should start with acetaminophen (paracetamol). A second choice or addition is non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Due to the risk of gastro-intestinal and cardiovascular side effects, which concerns both the traditional non selective NSAIDS and the newer cyclooxygenase 2-inhibitors, the use of NSAID should be cautious, especially in

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

749

the elderly. The addition of codeine or tramadol may be sufficient in cases with moderate pain and may be exchanged to morphine, oxycodone and similar opiods if needed [48]. The possible pain-reducing effect of drugs used to treat osteoporosis has been studied. One small study reported a beneficial short-term effect on pain with intravenous clodronate [49,50]. A randomised double blind trial in 32 patients with acute vertebral fractures reported that pamidronate given during three consecutive days had a better effect on pain than placebo. The effect lasted 30 days [51]. A meta-analysis of calcitonin given to patients with an acute vertebral fracture pain found a painreducing effect during the first weeks of treatment [52]. However, the long-term use of calcitonin has recently been associated with cancer risk. Therefore, the use of calcitonin has been restricted by the European Medicines Agency [53] and is no longer available for the treatment of osteoporosis in Europe. In a randomised controlled trial teriparatide was compared to risedronate. Subjects were women with back pain likely to be due to vertebral fractures. During a 6 month follow up, back pain decreased in both groups, but there was no difference in back pain between women treated with teriparatide or risedronate [54]. In a meta-analysis concerning women with postmenopausal osteoporosis and men with idiopathic or hypogonadal osteoporosis, teriparatide reduced the risk of any back pain (relative risk 0.66) compared to a pooled comparator group consisting of patients with placebo, alendronate, or hormone replacement therapy alone [55]. The effect seemed to last up to 30 months after drug discontinuation [56]. Specific interventions Brace treatment There are several types of spine braces or orthoses. Body jackets are custom made moulded braces for unstable fractures. Hyperextension, or three point, braces are used for more stable fractures in the lower thoracic and upper lumbar area. There are also various types of soft braces providing varying degrees of stability. The aim of the brace treatment is to stabilise the fracture and thereby prevent an increased deformity (most often kyphosis) and alleviate pain until the fracture heals. However, possible side effects of braces include muscular atrophy, skin irritation, restricted respiration and cost. There are few studies comparing brace treatment with no brace treatment. One randomised study of 47 patients (mean age 39 years) with burst fractures (AO type A3) treated with a thoracolumbar sacral orthosis or no orthosis did not show any difference during a one year follow up, as assessed by the Roland Morris Disability questionnaire and radiology [57]. A similar result was found in another study on 23 patients (mean age 40 years) with AO type 3 burst fractures when comparing a thoracolumbar sacral orthosis with no orthosis [58]. The experience at our clinic, and shared by others, is that many elderly individuals with poor soft tissue experience a great amount of discomfort when treated with a brace. Therefore, braces have been specifically designed for the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Two studies have been reported by the designers of the Spinomed brace. This is a light weight brace with pads and metal splints carried as a backpack. Women (n ¼ 62, mean age 72 years) with vertebral fractures, pain and kyphosis were randomized to the Spinomed brace or no treatment. The brace was worn 2 h per day. Back extensor strength was the primary end-point, and was significantly better after 6 months usage in the intervention group than in the controls. A similar result was found for well-being and pain. A second study on 108 women reported similar results [59,60]. Vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty The percutaneous injection of bone cement (polymethyl metacrylate; PMMA) into vertebrae was initially described in the treatment of hemangiomas [61] and malignancy [62]. The same technique was

750

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

later applied in patients with painful vertebral compression fractures. The procedure is performed under local or general anesthesia. The patient is placed in the prone position. One or two needles are inserted into the vertebral body. During vertebroplasty bone cement is injected without any direct reduction of the fracture. In kyphoplasty, two balloons are inserted into the vertebral body and expanded. A cavity is created and a reduction of the deformity is achieved. The cavity is filled with bone cement (Fig. 2). Several prospective uncontrolled trials reported that 70–90% of patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures achieved pain relief after vertebroplasty [63,64]. During 2009 two randomized trials reported lack of benefit with vertebroplasty when compared to a sham treated control group [65,66]. Several professional associations thereafter discouraged the use of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Even if well designed, these studies have raised some questions. The sham group received local anesthetic injection, which may reduce the pain associated with the vertebral compression [67]. The studies also included patients with a duration of pain due to a vertebral fracture of up to one year, and protocols were changed during the time of the study; shorter follow-ups and fewer patients were included than originally planned. Other randomised studies without a sham procedure as control have been published. A recent meta-analysis found 7 unique randomised controlled studies comparing a treatment group (cement injection) and a control group [64]. Of these, 6 were vertebroplasty studies and 1 a kyphoplasty study, and they included the two previously mentioned studies with a sham control group. In all, the number of patients that had been treated with cement injection was 440, and the number of controls was 437. In the short time follow up (12 weeks or less) significant beneficial effects on pain, functional outcome and health related quality of life were seen in the treated patients when compared to the controls. The longer follow up (26 weeks or more) showed a similar pattern. The differences were larger at the short time follow up than at the long time follow up. The mean difference in the visual analogue scale for back pain was more than 3 which exceeded the minimum clinically important difference [64]. Overall, adverse events did not differ between treated patients and controls. One of the risks that have been feared to be associated with injecting stiff bone cement in a vertebral body is adjacent level vertebral fractures. In the meta-analysis by Andersen and colleagues there was no difference in new fracture risk between the treated group and the control group, with 19% of the treated patients and 19% of the controls contracting new vertebral fractures [64]. However, follow-up times were short and exceeded one year in only one study. At present there seems to be no clinically important difference between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, with a reduction of a mean preoperative visual analog scale of 8 to about 3 points postoperatively in both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty patients [68–70]. Cement leakage is a common complication, and more common in vertebroplasty than in kyphoplasty. The reason is the low viscosity cement and the higher injection pressure used in vertebroplasty than in kyphoplasty. However, symptomatic cement complications are few. A slightly higher risk for complications has been reported with vertebroplasty than with kyphoplasty [68,71], but does not seem to affect outcome [68,70,71]. Postoperative infections are rare after these percutaneous procedures, but may be life-threatening [72]. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty should not be performed in patients with a ruptured vertebral posterior wall due to the risk of cement leakage in the spinal canal, and may not be technically possible to perform in patients with severely crushed vertebras. The equipment needed for balloon kyphoplasty is more expensive than for vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty is also more often performed under general anesthesia [70]. In a Swedish study, balloon kyphoplasty was not more cost-effective than standard medical treatment [73]. In a simulation model the cost-effectiveness of kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty and non-surgical management was compared. The study found kyphoplasty to be more cost-effective than vertebroplasty and non-surgical management [74]. The model had a large degree of uncertainty and the results should be interpreted with caution. This result contrasts the findings in randomised controlled trials, in which kyphoplasty was not more effective than vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty not more cost-effective than standard medical treatment [70,73].

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

751

Surgery Only a minority of elderly patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures are treated surgically [14]. Minor cervical spine fractures may be left untreated. Other fractures are treated with a cervical neck orthosis, or if unstable, with surgery. Odontoid fractures are among the most common cervical spine fracture in the elderly [15]. Treatment is debated. A cervical neck orthosis provides relative stability but leads in up to 85% of cases to a pseudoarthrosis, but not all are symptomatic. Surgical treatment leads to bony union in almost all cases, but since these patients often belong to a frail part of the population, surgery is not always a possible option [75]. An indication for surgery in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine is an unstable fracture, sometimes with neurological compromise, most often associated with high-energy trauma such as falls and traffic accidents [14]. However, the number of fall-induced fractures with associated spinal cord injuries in the elderly has been reported to be increasing [76], indicating a growing need of surgical treatment in the elderly. Exercise Exercise has been advocated to increase bone density [77], and to prevent falls and fractures [78]. A recent Cochrane report studied whether exercise could improve outcome after osteoporotic vertebral fractures. The authors found 7 randomised or quasi-randomised studies that compared exercise or physical therapy with non-exercise or placebo. The studies included in total 484 female and 4 male participants. The studies were diverse. Some studies reported improved pain, physical performance and quality of life during treatment. However, study data could not be pooled and the quality was in general low. No clear conclusions could be drawn [79]. Summary of optimal early management for short and long-term outcomes In the assessment of the patient, differential diagnoses and possible other disorders or injuries must be considered. Radiological investigation with plain x-ray or computed tomography should be performed. In the unusual event of neurological compromise, magnetic resonance imaging is performed. In the event of an unstable fracture, including fractures causing neurological compromise, surgery should be considered. Adequate pain medication should be prescribed. Immobilisation should be avoided. If pain medication is inadequate a brace may be tried. However, clear evidence for its effect is lacking. Osteoporosis should be suspected in the event of a low-energy trauma. Laboratory analyses to exclude differential diagnoses and secondary causes of osteoporosis include haemoglobin, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum calcium, albumin, creatinine, alkaline phosphatase, thyroid stimulating hormone and parathyroid hormone. Carbohydrate deficient transferrin or gamma glutamyl transferrase may be considered. Testosterone may be considered in younger men. If mobilization and recovery are restricted due to pain there is some evidence for a short-term beneficial effect of vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty in patients with acute fragility fractures. It is likely that the effect is more beneficial in the first months after the acute fracture than later. It is unclear whether the larger cost of kyphoplasty can be justified, since there is no clear clinical advantage compared to vertebroplasty. Magnetic resonance imaging should be performed before any vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty procedure if there is any uncertainty of the fractured level and age of the fracture. Fracture risk may be estimated with the help of online tools such as FRAX [80]. A bone density measurement will aid in the assessment of fracture risk. If there is a considerable risk of new fractures, treatment should be started. In men and postmenopausal women with idiopathic osteoporosis, bisphosphonates are generally considered the first line of choice. Secondary choices include denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators and parathyroid hormone analogues [81]. The number needed to medically treat the osteoporosis to prevent a new (vertebral) fracture is low and treatment should in most cases be considered [82]. Therefore, all patients with vertebral fragility fractures should be considered for secondary preventive measures.

752

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

Practice points  Vertebral fracture and deformity are common in the elderly.  Vertebral fracture and deformity carries a high risk of new fractures.  Secondary fracture prevention is most often indicated.

Research agenda  The effect of braces in the treatment of vertebral fractures should be further elucidated.  Long-term data on the beneficial effect and possible adverse effects of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are lacking. Further randomized controlled trials with sham control groups could enlighten the use and indications of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.  Exercise as a secondary preventive measure after vertebral fractures should be further studied.

Conflict of interest statement The author has no conflicts of interest. Funding source This study was financially supported by funds from the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet and the Karolinska Institutet research funds. The funding sources had no involvement in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing of the manuscript. References [1] Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S. A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 1994;3:184–201. *[2] Suzuki N, Ogikubo O, Hansson T. The course of the acute vertebral body fragility fracture: its effect on pain, disability and quality of life during 12 months. Eur Spine J 2008;17:1380–90. [3] Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton 3rd LJ. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a populationbased study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985–1989. J Bone Miner Res 1992;7:221–7. [4] Ross PD. Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med 1997;103:30S–42S [discussion 42S–43S]. [5] Woo EK, Mansoubi H, Alyas F. Incidental vertebral fractures on multidetector CT images of the chest: prevalence and recognition. Clin Radiol 2008;63:160–4. *[6] Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 1993;8:1137–48. [7] Link TM, Guglielmi G, van Kuijk C, Adams JE. Radiologic assessment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: diagnostic and prognostic implications. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1521–32. *[8] Ferrar L, Jiang G, Adams J, Eastell R. Identification of vertebral fractures: an update. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:717–28. [9] Vaccaro AR, Lehman Jr RA, Hurlbert RJ, Anderson PA, Harris M, Hedlund R, et al. A new classification of thoracolumbar injuries: the importance of injury morphology, the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex, and neurologic status. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2325–33. [10] Suzuki N, Ogikubo O, Hansson T. The prognosis for pain, disability, activities of daily living and quality of life after an acute osteoporotic vertebral body fracture: its relation to fracture level, type of fracture and grade of fracture deformation. Eur Spine J 2009;18:77–88. [11] Ensrud KE. Epidemiology of fracture risk with advancing age. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2013;68:1236–42. [12] Graziotti PJ, Graziotti CR, Sangster AM. Significance of preoperative MRI in establishing levels of augmentation for percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Pain Res 2013;6:359–65. [13] O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J, Cooper C, Kanis JA, Silman AJ. The prevalence of vertebral deformity in European men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 1996;11:1010–8. [14] Jansson KA, Blomqvist P, Svedmark P, Granath F, Buskens E, Larsson M, et al. Thoracolumbar vertebral fractures in Sweden: an analysis of 13,496 patients admitted to hospital. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:431–7.

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

753

[15] Watanabe M, Sakai D, Yamamoto Y, Sato M, Mochida J. Upper cervical spine injuries: age-specific clinical features. J Orthop Sci 2010;15:485–92. [16] Smith HE, Kerr SM, Fehlings MG, Chapman J, Maltenfort M, Zavlasky J, et al. Trends in epidemiology and management of type II odontoid fractures: 20-year experience at a model system spine injury tertiary referral center. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:501–5. *[17] Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Sembo I, Redlund-Johnell I, Dawson A, et al. Long-term risk of osteoporotic fracture in Malmo. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:669–74. [18] Jones G, White C, Nguyen T, Sambrook PN, Kelly PJ, Eisman JA. Prevalent vertebral deformities: relationship to bone mineral density and spinal osteophytosis in elderly men and women. Osteoporos Int 1996;6:233–9. [19] The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden Inpatient Registry [Social styrelsens patient register]. Database on the Internet. Available from: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/english; 2013 [accessed 20.08.13]. [20] Riggs BL, Melton 3rd LJ. The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 1995;17: 505S–11S. [21] Truumees E. Osteoporosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:930–2. [22] Borgstrom F, Zethraeus N, Johnell O, Lidgren L, Ponzer S, Svensson O, et al. Costs and quality of life associated with osteoporosis-related fractures in Sweden. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:637–50. [23] Dodwad SN, Khan SN. Surgical stabilization of the spine in the osteoporotic patient. Orthop Clin North Am 2013;44:243–9. [24] Weiss RJ, Wick MC, Ackermann PW, Montgomery SM. Increased fracture risk in patients with rheumatic disorders and other inflammatory diseases – a case-control study with 53,108 patients with fracture. J Rheumatol 2010;37:2247–50. *[25] Williams CM, Henschke N, Maher CG, van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Macaskill P, et al. Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:CD008643. [26] Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 2001;285:320–3. [27] Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD. Pre-existing fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:919–23. [28] Melton 3rd LJ, Atkinson EJ, Cooper C, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures. Osteoporos Int 1999;10:214–21. [29] Gunnes M, Mellstrom D, Johnell O. How well can a previous fracture indicate a new fracture? A questionnaire study of 29,802 postmenopausal women. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:508–12. [30] Ivaska KK, Gerdhem P, Vaananen HK, Akesson K, Obrant KJ. Bone turnover markers and prediction of fracture: a prospective follow-up study of 1040 elderly women for a mean of 9 years. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:393–403. [31] Nakamura K, Saito T, Kobayashi R, Oshiki R, Oyama M, Nishiwaki T, et al. C-reactive protein predicts incident fracture in community-dwelling elderly Japanese women: the Muramatsu study. Osteoporos Int 2011;22:2145–50. [32] Eriksson AL, Moverare-Skrtic S, Ljunggren O, Karlsson M, Mellstrom D, Ohlsson C. High sensitive CRP is an independent risk factor for all fractures and vertebral fractures in elderly men: the MrOS Sweden study. J Bone Miner Res 2014;29: 418–23. *[33] Marshall D, Johnell O, Wedel H. Meta-analysis of how well measures of bone mineral density predict occurrence of osteoporotic fractures. BMJ 1996;312:1254–9. [34] Stone KL, Seeley DG, Lui LY, Cauley JA, Ensrud K, Browner WS, et al. BMD at multiple sites and risk of fracture of multiple types: long-term results from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2003;18:1947–54. [35] Schousboe JT, DeBold CR, Bowles C, Glickstein S, Rubino RK. Prevalence of vertebral compression fracture deformity by Xray absorptiometry of lateral thoracic and lumbar spines in a population referred for bone densitometry. J Clin Densitom 2002;5:239–46. [36] Hallberg I, Rosenqvist AM, Kartous L, Lofman O, Wahlstrom O, Toss G. Health-related quality of life after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2004;15:834–41. [37] Wardlaw D, Cummings SR, Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, Tillman JB, Ranstam J, et al. Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;373:1016–24. [38] Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J, Jansen FH, Tielbeek AV, Blonk MC, et al. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376:1085–92. [39] Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, Stone K, Jamal SA, Ensrud K, et al. The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:793–800. [40] Suzuki N, Ogikubo O, Hansson T. Previous vertebral compression fractures add to the deterioration of the disability and quality of life after an acute compression fracture. Eur Spine J 2010;19:567–74. [41] Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, Scott JC, Black D. Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11:556–61. [42] Center JR, Nguyen TV, Schneider D, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA. Mortality after all major types of osteoporotic fracture in men and women: an observational study. Lancet 1999;353:878–82. [43] Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, Jacobsen SJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton 3rd LJ. Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:1001–5. *[44] Ismail AA, O’Neill TW, Cooper C, Finn JD, Bhalla AK, Cannata JB, et al. Mortality associated with vertebral deformity in men and women: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Osteoporos Int 1998;8:291–7. [45] Hasserius R, Karlsson MK, Nilsson BE, Redlund-Johnell I, Johnell O. Prevalent vertebral deformities predict increased mortality and increased fracture rate in both men and women: a 10-year population-based study of 598 individuals from the Swedish cohort in the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 2003;14:61–8. [46] Hasserius R, Karlsson MK, Jonsson B, Redlund-Johnell I, Johnell O. Long-term morbidity and mortality after a clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture in the elderly – a 12- and 22-year follow-up of 257 patients. Calcif Tissue Int 2005;76:235–42. [47] Fehlings MG, Arun R, Vaccaro AR, Arnold PM, Chapman JR, Kopjar B. Predictors of treatment outcomes in geriatric patients with odontoid fractures: AOSpine North America multi-centre prospective GOF study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:881–6.

754

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

[48] Cherubino P, Sarzi-Puttini P, Zuccaro SM, Labianca R. The management of chronic pain in important patient subgroups. Clin Drug Investig 2012;32(Suppl 1):35–44. [49] Rovetta G, Maggiani G, Molfetta L, Monteforte P. One-month follow-up of patients treated by intravenous clodronate for acute pain induced by osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Drugs Exp Clin Res 2001;27:77–81. [50] Rovetta G, Monteforte P, Balestra V. Intravenous clodronate for acute pain induced by osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Drugs Exp Clin Res 2000;26:25–30. [51] Armingeat T, Brondino R, Pham T, Legre V, Lafforgue P. Intravenous pamidronate for pain relief in recent osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a randomized double-blind controlled study. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1659–65. [52] Knopp JA, Diner BM, Blitz M, Lyritis GP, Rowe BH. Calcitonin for treating acute pain of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:1281–90. [53] European Medicines Agency recommends limiting long-term use of calcitonin medicines. Available from: http://www. ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl¼pages/news_and_events/news/2012/07/news_detail_001573. jsp&mid¼WC0b01ac058004d5c1; 2012. [54] Hadji P, Zanchetta JR, Russo L, Recknor CP, Saag KG, McKiernan FE, et al. The effect of teriparatide compared with risedronate on reduction of back pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:2141–50. [55] Nevitt MC, Chen P, Dore RK, Reginster JY, Kiel DP, Zanchetta JR, et al. Reduced risk of back pain following teriparatide treatment: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:273–80. [56] Nevitt MC, Chen P, Kiel DP, Reginster JY, Dore RK, Zanchetta JR, et al. Reduction in the risk of developing back pain persists at least 30 months after discontinuation of teriparatide treatment: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2006;17:1630–7. [57] Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, Thomas KC, Boyd MC, Paquett S, Kwon BK, et al. Comparison of thoracolumbosacral orthosis and no orthosis for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures: interim analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical equivalence trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:295–303. [58] Shamji MF, Roffey DM, Young DK, Reindl R, Wai EK. A pilot evaluation of the role of bracing in stable thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurologic deficit. J Spinal Disord Tech; 2012 Aug 18 [Epub ahead of print]. [59] Pfeifer M, Begerow B, Minne HW. Effects of a new spinal orthosis on posture, trunk strength, and quality of life in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2004;83:177–86. [60] Pfeifer M, Kohlwey L, Begerow B, Minne HW. Effects of two newly developed spinal orthoses on trunk muscle strength, posture, and quality-of-life in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2011;90:805–15. [61] Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le Gars D. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 1987;33:166–8. [62] Kaemmerlen P, Thiesse P, Bouvard H, Biron P, Mornex F, Jonas P. Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of metastases. Technic and results. J Radiol 1989;70:557–62. [63] Garfin SR, Yuan HA, Reiley MA. New technologies in spine: kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1511–5. *[64] Anderson PA, Froyshteter AB, Tontz Jr WL. Meta-analysis of vertebral augmentation compared with conservative treatment for osteoporotic spinal fractures. J Bone Miner Res 2013;28:372–82. [65] Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:557–68. [66] Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:569–79. [67] Bogduk N, MacVicar J, Borowczyk J. The pain of vertebral compression fractures can arise in the posterior elements. Pain Med 2010;11:1666–73. [68] Eck JC, Nachtigall D, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Comparison of vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of the literature. Spine J 2008;8:488–97. [69] Gill JB, Kuper M, Chin PC, Zhang Y, Schutt Jr R. Comparing pain reduction following kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Pain Physician 2007;10:583–90. [70] Liu JT, Liao WJ, Tan WC, Lee JK, Liu CH, Chen YH, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a prospective, comparative, and randomized clinical study. Osteoporos Int 2010;21:359–64. [71] Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Cahill P, Stanley T, Park D, Singh K. Percutaneous treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1228–32. [72] Abdelrahman H, Siam AE, Shawky A, Ezzati A, Boehm H. Infection after vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. A series of nine cases and review of literature. Spine J 2013;13:1809–17. [73] Fritzell P, Ohlin A, Borgstrom F. Cost-effectiveness of balloon kyphoplasty versus standard medical treatment in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a Swedish multicenter randomized controlled trial with 2-year followup. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:2243–51. [74] Svedbom A, Alvares L, Cooper C, Marsh D, Strom O. Balloon kyphoplasty compared to vertebroplasty and nonsurgical management in patients hospitalised with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a UK cost-effectiveness analysis. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:355–67. [75] Chapman J, Smith JS, Kopjar B, Vaccaro AR, Arnold P, Shaffrey CI, et al. The AOSpine North America Geriatric Odontoid Fracture Mortality Study: a retrospective review of mortality outcomes for operative versus nonoperative treatment of 322 patients with long-term follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:1098–104. [76] Kannus P, Niemi S, Palvanen M, Parkkari J. Continuously increasing number and incidence of fall-induced, fractureassociated, spinal cord injuries in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:2145–9. [77] Howe TE, Shea B, Dawson LJ, Downie F, Murray A, Ross C, et al. Exercise for preventing and treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2011:CD000333. [78] Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, Sherrington C, Gates S, Clemson LM, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;9:CD007146.

P. Gerdhem / Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 743–755

755

[79] Giangregorio LM, Macintyre NJ, Thabane L, Skidmore CJ, Papaioannou A. Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:CD008618. [80] FRAX, WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool. Database on the Internet. Available from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX/; 2013 [accessed 21.08.13]. *[81] Eriksen EF, Halse J, Moen MH. New developments in the treatment of osteoporosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92: 620–36. *[82] Curtis JR, Arora T, Matthews RS, Taylor A, Becker DJ, Colon-Emeric C, et al. Is withholding osteoporosis medication after fracture sometimes rational? A comparison of the risk for second fracture versus death. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010;11: 584–91.

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures: Vertebral fractures.

The incidence of vertebral fragility fractures and deformity increase steeply with age. Every sixth woman and every twelfth man will sustain a symptom...
883KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views