Department of Rheumatology, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen Hospital, Drammen, Norway.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Nov;34(11):2036-2044. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3827. Epub 2019 Aug 16.
The location of osteoporotic fragility fractures adds crucial information to post-fracture risk estimation. Triaging patients according to fracture site for secondary fracture prevention can therefore be of interest to prioritize patients considering the high imminent fracture risk. The objectives of this cross-sectional study were therefore to explore potential differences between central (vertebral, hip, proximal humerus, pelvis) and peripheral (forearm, ankle, other) fractures. This substudy of the Norwegian Capture the Fracture Initiative (NoFRACT) included 495 women and 119 men ≥50 years with fragility fractures. They had bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), trabecular bone score (TBS) calculated, concomitantly vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) with semiquantitative grading of vertebral fractures (SQ1-SQ3), and a questionnaire concerning risk factors for fractures was answered. Patients with central fractures exhibited lower BMD of the femoral neck (765 versus 827 mg/cm ), total hip (800 versus 876 mg/cm ), and lumbar spine (1024 versus 1062 mg/cm ); lower mean TBS (1.24 versus 1.28); and a higher proportion of SQ1-SQ3 fractures (52.0% versus 27.7%), SQ2-SQ3 fractures (36.8% versus 13.4%), and SQ3 fractures (21.5% versus 2.2%) than patients with peripheral fractures (all p < 0.05). All analyses were adjusted for sex, age, and body mass index (BMI); and the analyses of TBS and SQ1-SQ3 fracture prevalence was additionally adjusted for BMD). In conclusion, patients with central fragility fractures revealed lower femoral neck BMD, lower TBS, and higher prevalence of vertebral fractures on VFA than the patients with peripheral fractures. This suggests that patients with central fragility fractures exhibit more severe deterioration of bone structure, translating into a higher risk of subsequent fragility fractures and therefore they should get the highest priority in secondary fracture prevention, although attention to peripheral fractures should still not be diminished. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
骨质疏松性脆性骨折的部位为骨折后风险评估提供了重要信息。因此,根据骨折部位对患者进行分类以进行二级骨折预防,可以优先考虑考虑到高的即时骨折风险的患者。本横断面研究的目的是探讨中央(椎体,髋部,肱骨近端,骨盆)和外周(前臂,踝部,其他)骨折之间的潜在差异。挪威骨折捕获倡议(NoFRACT)的这项子研究纳入了 495 名≥50 岁的女性和 119 名男性脆性骨折患者。使用双能 X 射线吸收法(DXA)评估了股骨颈,全髋和腰椎的骨密度(BMD),计算了小梁骨评分(TBS),同时进行了半定量评估椎体骨折的椎体骨折评估(VFA)(SQ1-SQ3),并回答了有关骨折危险因素的问卷。中央性骨折患者的股骨颈(765 与 827mg/cm ),全髋(800 与 876mg/cm )和腰椎(1024 与 1062mg/cm )的 BMD 较低;平均 TBS 较低(1.24 与 1.28);SQ1-SQ3 骨折(52.0%与 27.7%),SQ2-SQ3 骨折(36.8%与 13.4%)和 SQ3 骨折(21.5%与 2.2%)的比例更高(均 p <0.05)。所有分析均根据性别,年龄和体重指数(BMI)进行了调整;TBS 和 SQ1-SQ3 骨折患病率的分析还根据 BMD 进行了调整。总之,与外周性骨折患者相比,中央性脆性骨折患者的股骨颈 BMD 降低,TBS 降低,VFA 上椎体骨折的发生率更高。这表明,中央性脆性骨折患者的骨结构恶化更为严重,从而导致随后发生脆性骨折的风险更高,因此他们应在二级骨折预防中得到最高优先级,尽管仍不应减少对外周骨折的关注。