Back Pain-Inducing Test, a Novel and Sensitive Screening Test for Painful Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: A Prospective Clinical Study

Risk of bony endplate failure during vertebral fracture

The endplate region of the vertebra, which includes the bony endplate (BEP) and underlying subchondral trabecular bone (STB), is critically involved in vertebral fracture (VF). While evidence abounds that failure initiates in the endplate region, the relative risk of failure of the BEP vs. STB has not been established. In this study, micro-finite element models were constructed of L1 vertebrae (n = 21) that were mechanically tested in a prior study and given experimentally matched boundary conditions corresponding to the vertebra's yield point. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were defined corresponding to the BEP and STB; the remainder was defined as the mid-vertebral body (MVB). The proportion of elements within each VOI that yielded was defined as the VOI yield fraction, and this value divided by the yield fraction of the entire model was defined as the normalized yield fraction. While yield fraction did not differ across VOIs (p = 0.179), normalized yield fraction was greater in the BEP than STB and MVB (p < 0.001), indicating a higher risk of yield in the BEP compared to the other two VOIs. None of the yield fractions was correlated with BEP or STB microstructure, and tension (rather than compression) was the dominant mode of tissue level yield. These findings indicate that the BEP, more so than the STB, is likely the site of VF initiation and that current methods of screening for VF risk, because they omit specific analysis of the BEP, are missing the region that matters the most. The endplate region of the vertebra, which includes the bony endplate (BEP) and underlying subchondral bone (SB), is critically involved in vertebral fracture (VF). While evidence abounds that failure initiates in the endplate region, the relative risk of failure of the BEP vs. SB has not been established. In this study, micro-finite element models were constructed of L1 vertebrae (n = 21) that had been mechanically tested in a prior study, and they were given experimentally matched boundary conditions corresponding to the vertebra's yield point. Volumes of interest (VOIs) were defined corresponding to the BEP and SB; the remainder was defined as the mid-vertebral body (MVB). The proportion of yielded elements within each VOI was defined as the VOI yield fraction, and this value divided by the yield fraction of the entire model was defined as the normalized yield fraction. While yield fraction did not differ across VOIs (p = 0.179), normalized yield fraction was greater in the BEP than SB and MVB (p < 0.001), indicating a higher risk of yield in the BEP compared to the other two VOIs. None of the yield fractions was correlated with BEP or SB microstructure, and tension (rather than compression) was the dominant mode of tissue level yield. These findings indicate that the BEP, more so than the SB, is likely the site of VF initiation and that current methods of screening for VF risk, because they omit specific analysis of the BEP, are missing the region that matters the most.

Guideline summary review: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of September 2020.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a guideline summary review.

METHODS

This guideline is the product of NASS' Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in recommendation meetings to update and formulate evidence-based recommendations and incorporate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references, is available electronically on the NASS website at http://www.spine.org/guidelines.

Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Lumbar Spine Using Ultrashort Echo Time Magnetization Transfer (UTE-MT) MRI

BACKGROUND

Bone collagen-matrix contributes to the mechanical properties of bone by imparting tensile strength and elasticity, which can be indirectly quantified by ultrashort echo time magnetization transfer ratio (UTE-MTR) to assess osteoporosis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate osteoporosis at the human lumbar spine using UTE-MTR.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective.

POPULATION

One hundred forty-eight-volunteers (age-range, 50-85; females, N = 90), including 81-normal bone density, 35-osteopenic, and 32-osteoporotic subjects. Ten additional healthy volunteers were recruited to study the intrasession reproducibility of the UTE-MT.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3T/UTE-MT, short repetition-time adiabatic inversion recovery prepared UTE (STAIR-UTE), and iterative decomposition of water-and-fat with echo-asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL-IQ).

ASSESSMENT

Fracture risk was calculated using Fracture-Risk-Assessment-Tool (FRAX). Region-of-interests (ROIs) were delineated on the trabecular area in the maps of bone-mineral-density, UTE-MTR, collagen-bound water proton-fraction (CBWPF), and bone-marrow fat fraction (BMFF).

STATISTICAL TESTS

Linear-regression and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to assess the reproducibility of UTE-MTR measurements in the different scans. UTE-MTR and BMFF were correlated with bone-mineral-density using Pearson's regression and with FRAX scores using nonlinear regression. The abilities of UTE-MTR, CBWPF, and BMFF to discriminate between the three patient subgroups were evaluated using receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) analysis and area-under-the-curve (AUC). Decision-curve-analysis (DCA) and clinical-impact curves were used to evaluate the value of UTE-MTR in clinical diagnosis. The DeLong test was used to compare the ROC curves. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Excellent reproducibility was obtained for the UTE-MT measurements. UTE-MTR strongly correlated with bone-mineral-density (r = 0.76) and FRAX scores (r = -0.77). UTE-MTR exhibited higher AUCs (≥0.723) than BMFF, indicating its superior ability to distinguish between the three patient subgroups. The DCA and clinical-impact curves confirmed the diagnostic value of UTE-MTR. UTE-MTR and CBWPF showed similar performance in correlation with bone-mineral-density and cohort classification.

DATA CONCLUSION

UTE-MTR strongly correlates with bone-mineral-density and FRAX and shows great potential in distinguishing between normal, osteopenic, and osteoporotic subjects.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool.

MAIN RESULTS

This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Pain and Stress Detection Using Wearable Sensors and Devices-A Review

Pain is a subjective feeling; it is a sensation that every human being must have experienced all their life. Yet, its mechanism and the way to immune to it is still a question to be answered. This review presents the mechanism and correlation of pain and stress, their assessment and detection approach with medical devices and wearable sensors. Various physiological signals (i.e., heart activity, brain activity, muscle activity, electrodermal activity, respiratory, blood volume pulse, skin temperature) and behavioral signals are organized for wearables sensors detection. By reviewing the wearable sensors used in the healthcare domain, we hope to find a way for wearable healthcare-monitoring system to be applied on pain and stress detection. Since pain leads to multiple consequences or symptoms such as muscle tension and depression that are stress related, there is a chance to find a new approach for chronic pain detection using daily life sensors or devices. Then by integrating modern computing techniques, there is a chance to handle pain and stress management issue.

Back pain from painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures: discrepancy between the actual fracture location and the location suggested by patient-reported pain or physical examination findings

Caution is necessary when using symptom or physical examination findings to localize the osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VFs) attributable to the discrepant colocalized relationship.

INTRODUCTION

Whether the location of symptoms or physical examination findings delineates the appropriate spinal range for imaging has not been thoroughly investigated for VFs. The present study aims to analyze the consistency between the fractural vertebrae location and the location suggested by patient-reported pain or physical examination findings.

METHODS

This observational study, following a prospective design, enrolled 358 patients with VFs. The locations of two symptoms (patient-reported back pain [P-RBP], radiating pain [RP]) and findings from two physical examinations (spinal palpation tenderness [SPT], axial spinal percussion pain [ASPP]) were used to locate the VF segments identified using whole-spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The percentage of agreements and kappa coefficient were calculated.

RESULTS

In 20.7% (74/358), the P-RBP site and VF segments were in the same location (kappa = 0.153); 21.2% (76/358) presented with concomitant RP in 93.4% (71/76) of whom the RP dermatome was colocalized with the VF segments (kappa = 0.924); 55.0% (197/358) and 23.2% (83/358) of patients presented with positive SPT and ASPP, respectively; and in 49.2% (97/197) and 96.4% (80/83) of patients with positive SPT (kappa = 0.435) and ASPP (kappa = 0.963), the positive finding and the VF segments were consistently colocalized.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive finding of RP or ASPP is useful in determining the spinal range for imaging tests, while an MRI scan covering the whole thoracic and lumbar spine is necessary in VF-suspected patients with P-RBP or positive SPT, indicating that caution is necessary when using symptoms or physical examination findings to localize VFs.