Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided biopsy in pathological fractures.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining a histological diagnosis is essential for appropriate management of pathological fractures. Computed tomography (CT) is an accurate method of obtaining diagnosis for musculoskeletal tumours. We analysed whether diagnostic accuracy was maintained in the evaluation of pathological fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review of 101 consecutive patients presenting to our tertiary musculoskeletal tumour centre with pathological fracture was performed. Patients underwent core needle biopsy under CT guidance of pathological fractures diagnosed by plain radiography and either CT or magnetic resonance imaging. The histopathology of the CT-guided biopsy was compared with the sample obtained from open biopsy or definitive surgery to determine diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The mean age at diagnosis was 52 ± 20 years (range: 18-85) in a cohort of 46 men and 55 women. Diagnostic accuracy of CT-guided biopsy was 82.18%. There were 65 malignant and 36 benign tumours with diagnostic accuracy of 86.15% and 80.56%, respectively. The positive predictive value for a malignant tumour was 98.21% whilst it was 93.1% for benign tumours. The femur (53 cases) and humerus (25 cases) were the commonest bones fractured. The most frequent diagnoses were metastasis (20.79%), giant cell tumour (17.82%), osteosarcoma (9.90%) and myeloma (9.90%). There were no complications of CT-guided biopsy. CONCLUSION: Pathological fracture does not confound the diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumours. CT-guided biopsy is an accurate diagnostic tool in the evaluation of pathological fractures. Final diagnosis and management should be made in the context of appropriate anatomical and functional imaging using a multidisciplinary approach.

Patients presenting with fractures are likely to be vitamin D deficient: are we getting enough sun?

BACKGROUND: 25-Hydroxyvitamin D serves a crucial role in bone metabolism through its role on osteoclast and osteoblastic function. To assess the implication of vitamin D and its relationship to bone fracture and fracture force, we have examined vitamin D levels in patients requiring inpatient fracture management. METHODS: We performed serological testing of vitamin D levels, calcium, parathyroid hormone and liver function tests on patients admitted to our rural institution in southeastern Australia for inpatient fracture management. All participants completed a questionnaire designed to screen for potential contributing factors to bony fragility. Demographic data were also obtained including age, gender and body mass index. Fracture location and the type of inpatient management as well as the force of injury were included in our analysis. RESULTS: We recruited 100 patients to the study, with a median age of 72 (range 22-98) of whom 66 were women. Most had low-energy fractures (79%), treated by internal fixation (73%) or arthroplasty (9%) with 18 treated non-operatively. The majority of the patients were at best vitamin D insufficient, <75 nmol/L (77%), and 38% were vitamin D deficient (<50 nmol/L). Only 14 patients had a formal diagnosis of osteoporosis at presentation, with 63 patients claiming daily sun exposure in line with recommendations for vitamin D sufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is common in patients presenting with fractures in southeastern Australia and is not confined to elderly patients. All patients with fractures should be assessed for vitamin D levels and treated in accordance with vitamin D deficiency guidelines.