• Spine · Jul 2021

    Comparative Study

    Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry Does Not Represent Bone Structure in Patients with Osteoporosis: A Comparison of Lumbar Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry with Vertebral Biopsies.

    • Matthias Pumberger, Yannick Palmowski, Patrick Strube, Christin Schwemmer, Stephanie Roll, Timo Zippelius, and Michael Putzier.
    • Spine Department, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
    • Spine. 2021 Jul 1; 46 (13): 861-866.

    Study DesignProspective cross-sectional exploratory study.ObjectiveTo evaluate the correlation between in vivo lumbar dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and parameters of bone architecture in micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) in patients with osteoporosis.Summary Of Background DataDXA is the current diagnostic standard for evaluating osteoporosis. However, there are various concerns regarding its validity, especially in the spine. No study has so far investigated whether in vivo DXA correlates with the actual lumbar bone architecture.MethodsLumbar DXA scans were compared with micro-CT analysis of vertebral biopsies in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (fracture group) and those without (control group). Preoperatively, all patients underwent a DXA scan (L1-L4). Intraoperative biopsies from nonfractured vertebrae (preferably L3) were analyzed by micro-CT regarding bone quantity and quality. The groups were compared regarding differences in DXA and micro-CT results. In each group, a correlation analysis was performed between DXA and micro-CT.ResultsThe study included 66 patients (33 per group). Preoperative DXA results were worse in the fracture group than the control group (areal bone mineral density [aBMD] 0.95 vs. 1.31, T-score -1.97 vs. 0.92, each P < 0.001). Micro-CT analysis confirmed differences regarding quantitative parameters (bone/total volume: 0.09 vs. 0.12, P < 0.001) and qualitative parameters (connectivity index: 15.73 vs. 26.67, P < 0.001; structure model index: 2.66 vs. 2.27, P < 0.001; trabecular number: 2.11 vs. 2.28, P = 0.014) of bone architecture between both groups. The DXA results did not correlate with micro-CT parameters in the fracture group. In the control group, correlations were found for some parameters (bone/total volume vs. aBMD: r = 0.51, P = 0.005; trabecular number vs. aBMD: r = 0.56, P = 0.001).ConclusionThese data constitute the first comparison of DXA measurements with microstructural analysis of vertebral biopsies in patients with osteoporosis. Our results indicate that lumbar DXA neither qualitatively nor quantitatively represents microstructural bone architecture and is therefore not a reliable tool for the evaluation of bone quality in the spine.Level of Evidence: 3.Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.