Deep learning application of vertebral compression fracture detection using mask R-CNN.

Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) of the thoracolumbar spine are commonly caused by osteoporosis or result from traumatic events. Early diagnosis of vertebral compression fractures can prevent further damage to patients. When assessing these fractures, plain radiographs are used as the primary diagnostic modality. In this study, we developed a deep learning based fracture detection model that could be used as a tool for primary care in the orthopedic department. We constructed a VCF dataset using 487 lateral radiographs, which included 598 fractures in the L1-T11 vertebra. For detecting VCFs, Mask R-CNN model was trained and optimized, and was compared to three other popular models on instance segmentation, Cascade Mask R-CNN, YOLOACT, and YOLOv5. With Mask R-CNN we achieved highest mean average precision score of 0.58, and were able to locate each fracture pixel-wise. In addition, the model showed high overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, indicating that it detected fractures accurately and without misdiagnosis. Our model can be a potential tool for detecting VCFs from a simple radiograph and assisting doctors in making appropriate decisions in initial diagnosis.

Shifting Perspectives: Equal Blunt Cerebrovascular Risk in Low-Versus High-Energy Cervical Fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical implications of screening for blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) after low-energy mechanisms of injury (LEMI) remain unclear. We assessed BCVI incidence and outcomes in LEMI versus high-energy mechanisms of injury (HEMI) patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, blunt trauma adults admitted between July 2015 and June 2021 with cervical spine fractures, excluding single spinous process, osteophyte, and chronic fractures were included. Demographics, comorbidities, injuries, screening and treatment data, iatrogenic complications, and mortality were collected. Our primary end point was to compare BCVI rates between LEMI and HEMI patients. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty patients (78%) were screened for BCVI; 120 were positive for BCVI. LEMI and HEMI groups presented similar BCVI rates (12.6% versus 14.4%; P = 0.640). Compared to HEMI patients (n = 95), LEMI patients (n = 25) were significantly older (79 ± 14.9 versus 54.3 ± 17.4, P < 0.001), more likely to be on anticoagulants before admission (64% versus 23.2%, P < 0.001), and less severely injured (LEMI injury severity score 10.9 ± 6.6 versus HEMI injury severity score 18.7 ± 11.4, P = 0.001). All but one LEMI and 90.5% of the HEMI patients had vertebral artery injuries with no significant difference in BCVI grades. One HEMI patient developed acute kidney injury because of BCVI screening. Eleven HEMI patients developed BCVI-related stroke with two related mortalities. One LEMI patient died of a BCVI-related stroke. CONCLUSIONS: BCVI rates were similar between HEMI and LEMI groups when screening based on cervical spine fractures. The LEMI group exhibited no screening or treatment complications, suggesting that benefits may outweigh the risks of screening and potential bleeding complications from treatment.

Multiple back fractures as a result of the first seizure.

Non-traumatic fractures due to seizures are an overlooked diagnostic group. It is well known that patients with generalized tonic-clonic seizures have an increased trauma risk. However, the cause of fracture is rarely due to the violent forces of muscle contractions. Usually, the primary patient examination focuses on the aetiology of the seizure, which sometimes delays the diagnosis of fractures. This is a case report of a 19-year-old woman who sustained three compression fractures of the thoracic spine due to a generalized tonic-clonic seizure, and a discussion of the diagnostic challenges in such a rare case.

Predicting osteoporotic fractures post-vertebroplasty: a machine learning approach with a web-based calculator.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model for predicting the risk of new osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) in patients who underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) and to create a user-friendly web-based calculator for clinical use. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty: A retrospective analysis of patients treated with PVP between June 2016 and June 2018 at Liuzhou People's Hospital was performed. The independent variables of the model were screened using Boruta and modelled using 9 algorithms. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC_AUC), and clinical utility was assessed by clinical decision curve analysis (DCA). The best models were analysed for interpretability using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and the models were deployed visually using a web calculator. RESULTS: Training and test groups were split using time. The SVM model performed best in both the training group tenfold cross-validation (CV) and validation group AUC, with an AUC of 0.77. DCA showed that the model was beneficial to patients in both the training and test sets. A network calculator developed based on the SHAP-based SVM model can be used for clinical risk assessment ( https://nicolazhang.shinyapps.io/refracture_shap/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The SVM-based ML model was effective in predicting the risk of new-onset OVCF after PVP, and the network calculator provides a practical tool for clinical decision-making. This study contributes to personalised care in spinal surgery.

Rarely Seen Compartment Syndrome of the Shoulder and Back: Diagnosis and Management.

Compartment syndrome (CS) is a well-known surgical emergency with high morbidity including potential long-term disability and limb loss. The most important factor determining the degree of morbidity with CS is time to treatment; therefore, early diagnosis and surgery are vital. We present a patient who fell off his bicycle and sustained cervical spine fractures causing near complete quadriplegia. He was found by the road over 12 hours later, so his creatine phosphokinase (CPK) was trended and serial examinations were performed. We identified tight deltoid, trapezius, and latissimus compartments and brought him to the operating room for fasciotomies. Although lab values and compartment pressures can be helpful, they should not guide treatment. It is important to consider atypical sites for CS and complete a head to toe physical examination. Patients should proceed to the operating room if clinical suspicion exists for CS because of the morbidity associated with a missed diagnosis.

The yield of routine laboratory examination in osteoporosis evaluation in primary care.

This study evaluated the yield of routine laboratory examination in a large population of older women in primary care. The prevalence of laboratory abnormalities was low and the clinical consequences in follow-up were limited. There was a weak association of laboratory abnormalities with osteoporosis but no association with vertebral fractures and recent fractures. PURPOSE: Most osteoporosis guidelines advice routine laboratory examination. We have investigated the yield of laboratory examinations in facture risk evaluation of elderly women in primary care. METHODS: We assessed the prevalence of laboratory abnormalities and their association with risk factors for fractures, recent fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD), and prevalent vertebral fracture in 8996 women ≥ 65 years of age participating in a primary care fracture risk screening study. In a sample of 2208 of these participants, we also evaluated the medical consequences in the medical records during a follow-up period of ≥ 1 year. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency (< 30 nmol/L) was present in 13% and insufficiency (< 50 nmol/L) in 43% of the study sample. The prevalence of other laboratory abnormalities (ESR, calcium, creatinine, FT4) was 4.6% in women with risk factors for fractures, 6.1% in women with low BMD (T-score ≤ - 2.5), 6.0% after a prevalent vertebral fracture, 5.2% after a recent fracture and 2.6% in the absence of important risk factors for fractures. Laboratory abnormalities other than vitamin D were associated with low BMD (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.8) but not with prevalent vertebral fractures nor recent fractures. Low BMD was associated with renal failure (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.4), vitamin D insufficiency (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.0-1.3) and deficiency (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.1-.5). In the follow-up period, 82% of the laboratory abnormalities did not result in a new diagnosis or treatment reported in the medical records. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a low prevalence of laboratory abnormalities in a primary care population of older women and the majority of these findings had no medical consequences.

Very low serum IGF-1 levels are associated with vertebral fractures in adult males with beta-thalassemia major.

PURPOSE: Patients with beta-thalassemia major (BTM) often develop several endocrine disorders due to chronic iron overload. They are also prone to osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. Plasmatic insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels are often low in subjects with BTM, which origin is multifactorial. The aim of this study was to evaluate a possible relationship between serum IGF-1 levels and the presence of osteoporosis and/or vertebral fractures. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the occurrence of vertebral fractures in 30 adult male patients affected by BTM (mean age 43.3 ± 7.9 years) with low serum IGF-1 (median value 52.4 ng/ml, 38.5-83.4). Only 6 of them (20.0%) were diagnosed with GH deficiency (GHD) after GHRH/arginine stimulation test, while 23 (76.7%) had osteoporosis and 12 (40.0%) had known vertebral fractures. All patients except one also showed at least one endocrine disorder. RESULTS: Serum IGF-1 was significantly lower in BTM patients with vertebral fractures compared to patients without vertebral fractures (U = 41.0, p = 0.005) while it was not significantly different between patients with low bone mass compared to patients without low bone mass. The diagnosis of GHD was significantly associated with lower serum IGF-1 (p = 0.001) and vertebral fractures (p = 0.002) but not with low bone mass. After ROC analysis, we found that very low IGF-1 (≤ 50.0 ng/dl) was associated with vertebral fractures (sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 75.0%) and was also predictive of GHD (sensitivity 75.0%, specificity 100.0%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that, in male patients with BTM, serum IGF-1 ≤ 50.0 ng/dl is a marker of vertebral fractures and it is predictive of a diagnosis of GHD.

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.

Performance of the Winning Algorithms of the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection Challenge.

Purpose To evaluate and report the performance of the winning algorithms of the Radiological Society of North America Cervical Spine Fracture AI Challenge. Materials and Methods The competition was open to the public on Kaggle from July 28 to October 27, 2022. A sample of 3112 CT scans with and without cervical spine fractures (CSFx) were assembled from multiple sites (12 institutions across six continents) and prepared for the competition. The test set had 1093 scans (private test set: n = 789; mean age, 53.40 years ± 22.86 [SD]; 509 males; public test set: n = 304; mean age, 52.51 years ± 20.73; 189 males) and 847 fractures. The eight top-performing artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms were retrospectively evaluated, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Results A total of 1108 contestants composing 883 teams worldwide participated in the competition. The top eight AI models showed high performance, with a mean AUC value of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.96), mean F1 score of 90% (95% CI: 90%, 91%), mean sensitivity of 88% (95% Cl: 86%, 90%), and mean specificity of 94% (95% CI: 93%, 96%). The highest values reported for previous models were an AUC of 0.85, F1 score of 81%, sensitivity of 76%, and specificity of 97%. Conclusion The competition successfully facilitated the development of AI models that could detect and localize CSFx on CT scans with high performance outcomes, which appear to exceed known values of previously reported models. Further study is needed to evaluate the generalizability of these models in a clinical environment. Keywords: Cervical Spine, Fracture Detection, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence Algorithms, CT, Head/Neck Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Osteoporosis: Diagnosis and management updates.

ABSTRACT: Osteoporosis, a common chronic bone disease, results in reduced bone mineral density and heightened fracture risk, particularly vertebral fractures. This article provides an overview of the condition's diagnosis and management updates.

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain.

EDITORIAL NOTE: See https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014461.pub2/full for a more recent review that covers this topic and has superseded this review. BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags obtained in a clinical history or physical examination to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with LBP. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for primary studies between the earliest date and 7 March 2012. Forward and backward citation searching of eligible studies was also conducted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were considered if they compared the results of any aspect of the history or test conducted in the physical examination of patients presenting for LBP or examination of the lumbar spine, with a reference standard (diagnostic imaging). The selection criteria were independently applied by two review authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the 11-item QUADAS tool. Characteristics of studies, patients, index tests and reference standards were extracted. Where available, raw data were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Due to the heterogeneity of studies and tests, statistical pooling was not appropriate and the analysis for the review was descriptive only. Likelihood ratios for each test were calculated and used as an indication of clinical usefulness. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies set in primary (four), secondary (one) and tertiary care (accident and emergency = three) were included in the review. Overall, the risk of bias of studies was moderate with high risk of selection and verification bias the predominant flaws. Reporting of index and reference tests was poor. The prevalence of vertebral fracture in accident and emergency settings ranged from 6.5% to 11% and in primary care from 0.7% to 4.5%. There were 29 groups of index tests investigated however, only two featured in more than two studies. Descriptive analyses revealed that three red flags in primary care were potentially useful with meaningful positive likelihood ratios (LR+) but mostly imprecise estimates (significant trauma, older age, corticosteroid use; LR+ point estimate ranging 3.42 to 12.85, 3.69 to 9.39, 3.97 to 48.50 respectively). One red flag in tertiary care appeared informative (contusion/abrasion; LR+ 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96). The results of combined tests appeared more informative than individual red flags with LR+ estimates generally greater in magnitude and precision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not support the use of many red flags to specifically screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting for LBP. Based on evidence from single studies, few individual red flags appear informative as most have poor diagnostic accuracy as indicated by imprecise estimates of likelihood ratios. When combinations of red flags were used the performance appeared to improve. From the limited evidence, the findings give rise to a weak recommendation that a combination of a small subset of red flags may be useful to screen for vertebral fracture. It should also be noted that many red flags have high false positive rates; and if acted upon uncritically there would be consequences for the cost of management and outcomes of patients with LBP. Further research should focus on appropriate sets of red flags and adequate reporting of both index and reference tests.

[Treatment of tracheoesophageal fistula and consequences of severe spinal injury]. / Lechenie trakheopishchevodnogo svishcha i posledstvii tyazheloi travmy pozvonochnika.

Modern approaches to intensive care and anesthesiology make it possible to save patients with various severe traumas. Prolonged mechanical ventilation allows stabilizing the patient's status, but can result severe complications including tracheoesophageal fistula. Our patient received severe combined injury after road accident, i.e. compression-comminuted fractures of DIV, DV, DVI vertebrae with spinal cord compression, ThIII compression fracture, compression-comminuted fracture of bodies and arches ThIV, V, VI with ThVI dislocation, lower paraplegia and pelvic organ dysfunction, left-sided laryngeal paresis, brain concussion and contusion of both lungs. Mechanical ventilation has been performed for 1.5 months. The patient suffered inflammatory complications: bilateral pneumonia complicated by right-sided pleural empyema, sepsis, tracheostomy suppuration followed by cervical soft tissue abscess. Pleural drainage and debridement, as well as drainage of abscess were performed. At the same time, we diagnosed external esophageal fistula at the CVII level. Tracheoesophageal fistula closure via cervical access was carried out at the first stage. Postoperative period was uneventful. After 20 days, we performed spondylosynthesis ThI-ThVII, and decompression laminectomy ThIV-ThVI. Spine stabilization by metal elements has a beneficial effect even without spinal cord recovery regarding better conditions for neurological and social rehabilitation. Thus, treatment was performed in a highly specialized multi-field hospital by thoracic surgeons and vertebrologists. We realized the treatment plan and obtained favorable results with minimal risk of postoperative complications.

[Osteoporotic vertebral body fractures]. / Osteoporotische Wirbelkörperfrakturen.

The number of osteoporotic fractures of the spine is increasing. These fractures are associated with elevated morbidity and mortality. This article provides an overview of the special features of these fractures, the diagnostic procedure, their classification, and the conservative and surgical treatment options. For the mostly elderly patients, it is important to treat the underlying disease and to address associated problems such as frailty and sarcopenia. To meet this growing medical and socio-economic challenge, a holistic interdisciplinary and interprofessional treatment approach is required.

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.

Vertebral compression fractures managed with brace: risk factors for progression.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for vertebral compression fracture (VCF) progression in patients treated conservatively with a brace. Then, a case-control study was designed. METHODS: All patients over 50 years old with diagnosis of thoracic or lumbar VCF (T5 to L5) in absence of underlying oncological process, treated conservatively with brace, and consecutively attended at our department from January 2017 to June 2021 were retrospectively selected for analysis. Patients missed for follow-up or dead during the first 3 months of follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-two consecutive patients were recorded. Incomplete follow-up excluded 74 patients and other 19 died in the first three months after diagnosis, so 489 cases were finally analyzed. Median follow-up was 21 (IQR 13;30) weeks. Increased collapse of the vertebral body was found in 29.9% of VCFs with a median time to progression of 9 (IQR 7;13) weeks. Male gender (OR 1.6), type A3 fracture of the AOSpine classification (OR 2.7), thoracolumbar junction location (OR 1.7), and incorrect use of the brace (OR 3.5) were identified as independent risk factors for progression after multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Male gender, type A3 fracture of the AOSpine classification, thoracolumbar junction location, and incorrect use of the brace were identified as independent risk factors for VCF progression, which resulted in worse pain control, when treated with brace. Thus, other treatments such as percutaneous vertebral augmentation could be considered to avoid progression in selected cases, since collapse rate has been demonstrated lower with these procedures.

Differentiation of benign and malignant vertebral fractures using a convolutional neural network to extract CT-based texture features.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) CT-based texture features (TFs) using a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based framework to differentiate benign (osteoporotic) and malignant vertebral fractures (VFs). METHODS: A total of 409 patients who underwent routine thoracolumbar spine CT at two institutions were included. VFs were categorized as benign or malignant using either biopsy or imaging follow-up of at least three months as standard of reference. Automated detection, labelling, and segmentation of the vertebrae were performed using a CNN-based framework ( https://anduin.bonescreen.de ). Eight TFs were extracted: Varianceglobal, Skewnessglobal, energy, entropy, short-run emphasis (SRE), long-run emphasis (LRE), run-length non-uniformity (RLN), and run percentage (RP). Multivariate regression models adjusted for age and sex were used to compare TFs between benign and malignant VFs. RESULTS: Skewnessglobal showed a significant difference between the two groups when analyzing fractured vertebrae from T1 to L6 (benign fracture group: 0.70 [0.64-0.76]; malignant fracture group: 0.59 [0.56-0.63]; and p = 0.017), suggesting a higher skewness in benign VFs compared to malignant VFs. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional CT-based global TF skewness assessed using a CNN-based framework showed significant difference between benign and malignant thoracolumbar VFs and may therefore contribute to the clinical diagnostic work-up of patients with VFs.

[Sacral H-shaped fractures between traumatic, insufficiency and fatigue fractures : Similarities, differences and controversies]. / Die Sakrum-H-Fraktur zwischen traumatischer, Insuffizienz- und Ermüdungsfraktur : Gemeinsamkeiten, Unterschiede und Kontroversen.

In the basic entirety of stress fractures, insufficiency fractures are defined as fractures caused by prolonged normal or physiological loading of a bone with insufficient elastic resistance. This clearly distinguishes it from fatigue fractures, in which excessive loads are continuously applied to a bone with normal elastic resistance. According to Pentecost (1964) both entities of stress fracture result from "the inherent inability of the bone to withstand stress applied without violence in a rhythmical, repeated, subthreshold manner". This distinguishes them from acute traumatic fractures. In the clinical routine these differences are not always so clearly presented. The example of the H­shaped sacral fracture is used to illustrate the relevance of a clear terminology. In this context, current controversies in the treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures are discussed.