Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are common and usually managed conservatively. However, a significant number will remain symptomatic, causing significant pain with considerable associated morbidity and mortality. These fractures can be effectively treated with cement augmentation. However, it is impossible to distinguish between an acute and a chronic healed fracture on plain radiographs. The definitive investigation is a magnetic resonance scan. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate two new clinical signs to help in the diagnosis of symptomatic fractures. A prospective study of 83 patients with suspected acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures was carried out. All patients had a full clinical assessment, which included closed-fist percussion of their spine and asking the patient to lie supine on the examination couch. All patients had a MRI scan.
RESULTS
The closed-fist percussion sign had a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 90%. The supine sign had a sensitivi-’ of 81.25% and a specificity of 93.33%.
CONCLUSIONS
These tests will enable the practitioner to predict more accurately which patients have an acute fracture, guiding referral for further imaging.
Keywords: Symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, Diagnosis
Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are the most common type of fragility fracture. Overall, 25% of women over the age of 65 years and 40% of women over the age of 80 years have a vertebral compression fracture.1 These fractures are frequently misdiagnosed as there is often no history of preceding trauma.2
Pain severity following an acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture is variable. Whilst a cohort of patients are able to continue with their normal activities of daily living, a considerable number are severely incapacitated.3 Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures not only cause back pain and loss of function, but can also result in a progressive spinal deformity, decreased lung capacity, and gastrointestinal dysfunction.4–6 Following a vertebral compression fracture, there is an increased risk of adjacent level fracture, and studies have shown a 23% increase in 1-year mortality.7,8
Traditionally, we have been unable to offer any effective treatment to these patients, with many left languishing on ‘care of the elderly’ wards for considerable periods of time.9 Percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty offer effective treatment for patients with debilitating pain due to an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.10–13 However, it is difficult to diagnose patients with a symptomatic fracture (an acute fracture or one that is more chronic but has failed to heal). It is impossible to distinguish between an acute and a healed fracture on plain radiographs (Fig. 1). Cement augmentation is only effective treatment for symptomatic fractures. The definitive investigation to determine the presence of a symptomatic fracture is a magnetic resonance (MR) scan. Symptomatic fractures have oedema on the short tau inversion recovery (STIR; Fig. 2).14 They may also have a visible fracture line on the T1-weighted image (Fig. 3).14 However, access to MR scanning is limited and, therefore, we need to improve our clinical suspicion, so that we are only scanning those most likely to have a symptomatic fracture amenable to treatment.
Figure 1.
A plain lateral radiograph of an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.
Figure 2.
A sagittal T1-weighted MR scan showing an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture line.
Figure 3.
A sagittal STIR sequence showing oedema within the fractured vertebral body.
In his management of these patients, the senior author (SM) made two observations. First, closed-fist percussion at the level of an acute vertebral compression fracture results in a severe, sharp, fracture pain. Second, a large number of these patients reported that they were unable to lie supine for their MR scan due to extreme pain. Many of these patients also reported sleeping in a chair at night.
The aim of this study was to evaluate these two clinical signs to determine how effective they are at predicting a symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.
Patients and Methods
The clinical signs
The examiner stands behind the patient. The patient stands facing a mirror so that the examiner can gauge their reaction. The entire length of the spine is examined using firm, closed-fist percussion. The clinical sign is positive when the patient complains of a sharp, sudden, fracture pain.
The patient is asked to lie supine on the examination couch with only one pillow. The clinical sign is positive when a patient is unable to lie supine due to severe pain in their spine.
Patients
Eighty-three consecutive patients with a suspected symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture were prospectively evaluated in this study. There were 8 men and 75 women with a mean age of 78.4 years (range, 72-95 years). All patients reported acute onset back pain of varying duration and were suspected as having a vertebral compression fracture. Five patients were excluded from this study: two because they had a pacemaker in situ and were unable to have a MR scan; two further patients were excluded as they were unable to tolerate a MR scan due to claustrophobia; and one patient was excluded with a spinal metastasis.
The patients were all assessed by the senior author (SM). For each patient the clinical assessment included closed-fist percussion, and then asking the patient to lie supine on the examination couch. All patients had a MR scan of their thoracic and lumbar spine. Only sagittal T1-weighted and STIR sequences were performed. The presence of a fracture was delineated by the identification of oedema on the STIR sequences with or without a fracture line on the T1-weighted sequences.
Results
Of the 78 patients who were included in this study, 48 were found to have an acute or chronic, but non-healed, vertebral compression fracture on their MR scan. In addition, three patients were found to have sacral pressure sores due to sleeping in a chair at night.
Forty-five patients were positive for closed-fist percussion. Forty-two of these patients had an acute fracture on their MR scan. However, there were six patients who were negative for closed-fist percussion, but who had an acute fracture on the scan. The sensitivity of this sign was 87.5%, and the specificity was 90% (Table 1).
Table 1.
Results for the closed-fist percussion sign
| Acute fracture on MRI | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | |
| Positive | 42 | 3 | 45 |
| Negative | 6 | 27 | 33 |
| Total | 48 | 30 | 78 |
Forty-one patients were unable to lie flat and 39 of these had an acute fracture on their MR scan. However, there were nine patients who were comfortably able to lie supine, but who had an acute fracture on their scan. The sensitivity of this sign was 81.25%, and the specificity was 93.33% (Table 2).
Table 2.
Results for the supine sign
| Acute fracture on MRI | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | |
| Positive | 39 | 2 | 41 |
| Negative | 9 | 28 | 37 |
| Total | 48 | 30 | 78 |
The number of fractures at each spinal level, and the number correctly identified by the two clinical signs are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
The number of fractures identified at each spinal level
| Spinal level | Acute fracture on MR scan | Positive closed-fist percussion sign | Positive supine sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| T10 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| T11 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| T12 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| L1 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| L2 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| L3 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| L4 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
| L5 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| Total | 48 | 42 | 39 |
Discussion
Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are an increasingly common problem. Traditionally, we have been unable to treat these patients, resulting in a high associated morbidity and mortality. Cement augmentation techniques can now offer effective treatment to these patients. However, we need to be able to diagnose a symptomatic fracture reliably. Magnetic resonance imaging is currently the only available definitive diagnostic tool, but is a limited resource. These two clinical signs help in the identification of patients with a symptomatic fracture and are, therefore, useful predictors of which patients require a MR scan.
Both tests were found to be less reliable at detecting symptomatic fractures in the lower lumbar spine (Table 3). With closed-fist percussion, the authors felt that this was most likely due to the greater thickness of soft tissues covering the spine at this level. On lying supine, the authors postulate that patients experience pain due to the spine extending causing the fracture cleft to open up. However, due to the lordosis of the lumbar spine, this phenomenon does not occur as much with fractures of the lower lumbar spine; therefore, these patients are able to lie supine more comfortably. These two clinical signs have been kept as separate entities for the purpose of this paper, as the combined sign is both less sensitive and less specific.
A patient unable to tolerate lying flat maybe considered to be a clinical symptom rather than a clinical sign. The authors, however, would argue that many patients do not lie supine at home and may sleep on their side, propped up on pillows, or sitting up in a chair and, therefore, do not report this symptom. We believe that asking the patient to lie supine on the examination couch with only one pillow is a much more reliable indicator of a symptomatic fracture than the history alone. Many of the patients were unable to lie flat for their MR scan, and were scanned either on their side or propped up on pillows.
Conclusions
These two clinical signs are useful adjuncts in the diagnostic evaluation of symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, as either a positive closed-fist percussion sign or a positive supine sign is a reliable indicator of the presence of a symptomatic vertebral compression fracture. By incorporating these signs into routine clinical assessment, we are better able to predict which patients have a fracture that is amenable to cement augmentation treatment, enabling the surgeon to rationalise those patients referred for a MR scan.
References
- 1.Melton LJ, Kan SH, Frye MA, Wahner HW, O'Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:1000–11. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Delmas PD, van de Langerijt L, Watts NB, Eastell R, Genant H, et al. Underdiagnosis of vertebral fractures is a worldwide problem: the IMPACT study. J Bone Miner Res. 2005;20:557–63. doi: 10.1359/JBMR.041214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ross PD. Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med. 1997;103:30S–42S. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(97)90025-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cortet B, Roches E, Logier R, Houvenagel E, Gaydier-Souquiéres G, Puisieux F, et al. Evaluation of spinal curvatures after a recent osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69:201–8. doi: 10.1016/s1297-319x(02)00381-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pluijm SM, Tromp AM, Smit JH, Deeg DJ, Lips P. Consequences of vertebral deformities in older men and women. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:1564–72. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.8.1564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Schlaich C, Minne HW, Bruckner T, Wagner G, Gebest HJ, et al. Reduced pulmonary function in patients with spinal osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 1998;8:261–7. doi: 10.1007/s001980050063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nevitt MC, Ross PD, Palermo L, Musliner T, Genant HK, Thompson DE. Association of prevalent vertebral fractures, bone density, and alendronate treatment with incident vertebral fractures: effect of number and spinal location of fractures. The Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Bone. 1999;25:613–9. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(99)00202-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, Cummings SR. Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:1215–20. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.11.1215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lee YL, Yip KMH. The osteoporotic spine. Clin Orthop. 1996;323:91–7. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199602000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Eck JC, Nachtigall D, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Comparison of vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of the literature. Spine J. 2008;8:488–97. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lavelle WF, Khaleel MA, Cheney R, Demers E, Carl AL. Effect of kyphoplasty on survival after vertebral compression fractures. Spine J. 2008;8:763–9. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Taylor RS, Fritzell P, Taylor RJ. Balloon kyphoplasty in the management of vertebral compression fractures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1085–100. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0308-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Garfin SR, Yuan HA, Reiley MA. Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine. 2001;26:1511–5. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200107150-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Yang HL, Wang GL, Niu GQ, Liu JY, Hiltner E, et al. Using MRI to determine painful vertebrae to be treated by kyphoplasty in multiple-level vertebral compression fractures: a prospective study. J Int Med Res. 2008;36:1056–63. doi: 10.1177/147323000803600524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]