A newly developed spine deformity index (SDI) to quantitate vertebral crush fractures in patients with osteoporosis

AbstractThe Spine Deformity Index (SDI) is a measure of vertebral fractures (VFs), providing information on both their number and severity.We evaluated the relationships between SDI and clinical, biochemical and arterial calcification parameters in 387 hemodialysis (HD) patients. VFs, assessed by quantitative vertebral morphometry, and vascular calcifications were identified in the same lateral spinal X-ray. To improve the detection of fracture severity, we created a corrected SDI (c-SDI), by dividing SDI for the number of VFs. We assessed routine biochemistry, bone-Gla-protein (BGP), undercaboxylated BGP (ucBGP), and matrix-Gla-protein (MGP).VFs prevalence was 55.3%. HD patients with a SDI >1 were more frequently males (p<0.05), and had lower BGP (p<0.01). Patients with a c-SDI >1 had higher LDL-cholesterol (p<0.05) and lower ucBGP (p<0.05) and MGP (p<0.05). Calcifications of the abdominal aorta (AAoC) were more frequent in patients with SDI >1 (p<0.05) and with c-SDI >1 (p<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression showed that male sex (OR 1.86, CI 1.20–2.91), age (OR 1.03, CI 1.01–1.05) and albumin ≥3.5 g/dL (OR 0.54, CI 0.31–0.93) were predictors of a SDI >1. Age (OR 1.05, CI 1.03–1.07), LDL-cholesterol (OR 1.74, CI 1.04–2.92) and ucBGP (OR 0.35, CI 0.18–0.70) were associated with c-SDI >1.We conclude that the severity of VFs was associated with age, atherogenic factors and bone metabolism markers.

Download Full-text

Spine deformity index (SDI) versus other objective procedures of vertebral fracture identification in patients with osteoporosis: A comparative study

Journal of Bone and Mineral Research ◽

10.1002/jbmr.5650060304 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 227-238 ◽

Cited By ~ 54

Author(s):

Peter Sauer ◽

Gudrun Leidig ◽

Helmut W. Minne ◽

Günter Duckeck ◽

Wolfgang Schwarz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Vertebral Fracture ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Spine Deformity ◽

Spine Deformity Index ◽

Fracture Identification

Download Full-text

Evaluation attempt of own body sensing amongst persons with and without scoliosis

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation ◽

10.3233/bmr-191761 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-6

Author(s):

Elżbieta Szczygieł ◽

Agata Gigoń ◽

Izabela Cebula Chudyba ◽

Golec Joanna ◽

Golec Edward

Keyword(s):

Idiopathic Scoliosis ◽

Sensory Integration ◽

Head Position ◽

Clinical Test ◽

Spine Deformity ◽

Functional Tests ◽

Body Proportion ◽

Average Value ◽

Age Range

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a common structural spine deformity affecting 2%–4% of adolescents. Due to the unknown cause of idiopathic scoliosis, its therapy is a long-term and often unsatisfactory process. In the literature, it is often suggested that problems related to the feeling of one’s own body are caused by AIS. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feeling of one’s own body among children with and without scoliosis on the example of feeling the head position, pelvis shape and balance. METHOD: The research included 62 children: 30 with scoliosis and 25 without diagnosed scoliosis with an age range between 11 to 19 years. The minimum scoliosis value was 7∘ and the maximum was 53∘. The average value was 25∘. During the study, three functional tests were used: Cervical Joint Position Error Test (CJPET), Clinical Test of Sensory Integration on Balance (CTSIB) and Body proportion demonstration test (BPDT). RESULTS: The results of the tests showed statistically significant differences (CJPET p= 3.54* 10-14, CTSIB p= 0.0376, BPDT p= 0.0127). However, none of the studies showed a correlation between the results of people with scoliosis and the value of their Cobb angles.

Download Full-text

A new nomenclature system for the surgical treatment of cervical spine deformity, developing, and validation of SOF system

European Spine Journal ◽

10.1007/s00586-021-06751-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jae Taek Hong ◽

Heiko Koller ◽

Kuniyoshi Abumi ◽

Wen Yuan ◽

Asdrubal Falavigna ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Surgical Treatment ◽

Spine Deformity ◽

Nomenclature System

Download Full-text

A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2013.5.spine121067 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 19 (3) ◽

pp. 269-278 ◽

Cited By ~ 50

Author(s):

Christopher P. Ames ◽

Justin S. Smith ◽

Justin K. Scheer ◽

Christopher I. Shaffrey ◽

Virginie Lafage ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cervical Spine ◽

Soft Tissue ◽

Interrater Reliability ◽

Soft Tissue Release ◽

Spine Deformity ◽

Intrarater Reliability ◽

Perfect Agreement ◽

Moderate Agreement ◽

Posterior Anterior ◽

Anterior Posterior

Object Cervical spine osteotomies are powerful techniques to correct rigid cervical spine deformity. Many variations exist, however, and there is no current standardized system with which to describe and classify cervical osteotomies. This complicates the ability to compare outcomes across procedures and studies. The authors' objective was to establish a universal nomenclature for cervical spine osteotomies to provide a common language among spine surgeons. Methods A proposed nomenclature with 7 anatomical grades of increasing extent of bone/soft tissue resection and destabilization was designed. The highest grade of resection is termed the major osteotomy, and an approach modifier is used to denote the surgical approach(es), including anterior (A), posterior (P), anterior-posterior (AP), posterior-anterior (PA), anterior-posterior-anterior (APA), and posterior-anterior-posterior (PAP). For cases in which multiple grades of osteotomies were performed, the highest grade is termed the major osteotomy, and lower-grade osteotomies are termed minor osteotomies. The nomenclature was evaluated by 11 reviewers through 25 different radiographic clinical cases. The review was performed twice, separated by a minimum 1-week interval. Reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa coefficients. Results The average intrarater reliability was classified as “almost perfect agreement” for the major osteotomy (0.89 [range 0.60–1.00]) and approach modifier (0.99 [0.95–1.00]); it was classified as “moderate agreement” for the minor osteotomy (0.73 [range 0.41–1.00]). The average interrater reliability for the 2 readings was the following: major osteotomy, 0.87 (“almost perfect agreement”); approach modifier, 0.99 (“almost perfect agreement”); and minor osteotomy, 0.55 (“moderate agreement”). Analysis of only major osteotomy plus approach modifier yielded a classification that was “almost perfect” with an average intrarater reliability of 0.90 (0.63–1.00) and an interrater reliability of 0.88 and 0.86 for the two reviews. Conclusions The proposed cervical spine osteotomy nomenclature provides the surgeon with a simple, standard description of the various cervical osteotomies. The reliability analysis demonstrated that this system is consistent and directly applicable. Future work will evaluate the relationship between this system and health-related quality of life metrics.

Download Full-text