Evidence Hub

Regional bone mineral density differences measured by quantitative computed tomography: does the standard clinically used L1-L2 average correlate with the entire lumbosacral spine?

Salzmann SN, Shirahata T, Yang J, Miller CO, Carlson BB, Rentenberger C, Carrino JA, Shue J et al.

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2019

296 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the lumbar spine is used as an alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessing bone mineral density (BMD). The average BMD of L1-L2 is the standard reportable metric used for diagnostic purposes according to current recommendations. The density of L1 and L2 has also been proposed as a reference value for the remaining lumbosacral vertebrae and is commonly used as a surrogate marker for overall bone health. Since regional BMD differences within the spine have been proposed, it is unclear if the L1-L2 average correlates with the remainder of the lumbosacral spine.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine possible BMD variations throughout the lumbosacral spine in patients undergoing lumbar fusion and to assess the correlation between the clinically used L1-L2 average and the remaining lumbosacral vertebral levels.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is a retrospective case series.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion from 2014 to 2017 at a single, academic institution with available preoperative CT imaging were included in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measure was BMD measured by QCT.

METHODS: Standard QCT measurements at the L1 and L2 vertebra and additional experimental measurements of L3, L4, L5, and S1 were performed. Subjects with missing preoperative lumbar spine CT imaging were excluded. The correlations between the L1-L2 average and the other vertebral…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 296 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free