Value and potential limitations of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) compared to conventional spine radiography: experience from a fracture liaison service (FLS) and a meta-analysis.

We evaluated the value of VFA in the identification of vertebral fractures using a retrospective study and a meta-analysis. Performance of VFA was adequate in the meta-analysis although this was not demonstrated in our centre. We recommend checking the performance of VFA tools before exclusively relying on this tool. INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fractures are traditionally diagnosed using conventional radiographs of the spine. Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) has been advocated as an alternative tool in the diagnosis of these fractures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study as well as a systematic review and a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of VFA compared to conventional spinal radiography in patients who had sustained a fracture and thus at risk for osteoporosis. A risk of bias analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The diagnostic study included 542 patients (25% male) with fractures. The sensitivity of low-radiation VFA to detect a patient with a vertebral fracture ≥ Genant grade 2 was 0.77 and its specificity 0.80. Two hundred ninety-seven (55%) patients had ≥1 and 135(25%) ≥3 unevaluable vertebrae. The systematic review identified 16 studies including a total of 3238 subjects (19% male) with a mean age range of 45 to 74 years. Seven studies had a low risk of bias and 9 had an intermediate risk, mainly due to not consecutively including patients. The pooled sensitivity of VFA to detect a patient with a vertebral fracture ≥Genant grade 2 was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) and specificity 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from the meta-analysis suggest an adequate performance of VFA for the detection of vertebral fractures. However, we could not demonstrate these findings in our center, especially the specificity. Our data advocate caution with exclusively relying on VFA in the assessment of vertebral fractures without identifying performance and potential limitations of the technique.

Possible complications of subclavian crush syndrome.

A 70-year-old woman with symptomatic Mobitz type II atrioventricular block underwent implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker 11 years ago. The leads were inserted through a percutaneous puncture of the right subclavian vein, using standard techniques. Both leads were passive fixation leads. Due to battery failure and end of life criteria, the pulse generator (PG) had been routinely replaced six years previously. Predischarge pacemaker control revealed normal pacing, sensing thresholds and impedance for both leads. Because of a syncopal attack subsequent to lead fractures, most likely secondary to right subclavian crush syndrome (SCS) of both leads, she underwent a double lead re-implantation one year after PG replacement by access via left subclavian vein puncture. After a symptom-free period of few years she was re-analysed because of palpitations, dizziness, angina pectoris and tiredness. Pulmonary embolisation and myocardial perfusion defects were detected utilising scintigraphic techniques. Chest X-ray revealed the crushed atrial lead dislocated from the right subclavian region and lodged into the right ventricle towards the inferior septum. Because she was symptomatic, a retrieval technique was applied and the crushed atrial lead was pulled back from the right ventricle and securely fixed to its former position. On maintenance medical treatment, she remains well.