Integration of a vertebral fracture identification service into a fracture liaison service: a quality improvement project.
computerised tomography
fragility fracture
machine learning
osteoporosis
vertebral fracture
Journal
Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA
ISSN: 1433-2965
Titre abrégé: Osteoporos Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9100105
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
16
06
2020
accepted:
20
10
2020
pubmed:
11
11
2020
medline:
16
4
2021
entrez:
10
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Integration of a vertebral fracture identification service into a Fracture Liaison Service is possible. Almost one-fifth of computerised tomography scans performed identified an individual with a fracture. This increase in workload needs to be considered by any FLS that wants to utilise such a service. This service improvement project aimed to improve detection of incidental vertebral fractures on routine imaging. It embedded a vertebral fracture identification service (Optasia Medical, OM) on routine computerised tomography (CT) scans performed in this hospital as part of its Fracture Liaison Service (FLS). The service was integrated into the hospital's CT workstream. Scans of patients aged ≥ 50 years for 3 months were prospectively retrieved, alongside their clinical history and the CT report. Fractures were identified via OM's machine learning algorithm and cross-checked by the OM radiologist. Fractures identified were then added as an addendum to the original CT report and the hospital FLS informed. The FLS made recommendations based on an agreed algorithm. In total, 4461 patients with CT scans were retrieved over the 3-month period of which 850 patients had vertebra fractures identified (19.1%). Only 49% had the fractures described on hospital radiology report. On average, 61 patients were identified each week with a median of two fractures. Thirty-six percent were identified by the FLS for further action and recommendations were made to either primary care or the community osteoporosis team within 3 months of fracture detection. Of the 64% not identified for further action, almost half was because the CT was part of cancer assessment or treatment. The remaining were due to a combination of only ≤ 2 mild fractures; already known to a bone health specialist; in the terminal stages of any chronic illness; significant dependency for activities of daily living; or a life expectancy of less than 12 months CONCLUSION: It was feasible to integrate a commercial vertebral fracture identification service into the daily working of a FLS. There was a significant increase in workload which needs to be considered by any future FLS planning to incorporate such a service into their clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33170309
doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05710-8
pii: 10.1007/s00198-020-05710-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
921-926Références
Ivergard M, Svedbom A, Hernlund E et al (2013) Epidemiology and economic burden of osteoporosis in UK. Arch Osteoporos. 8(137):211–218
Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O’Fallon WM (1992) Melton, L.J 3rd. (1992) Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985-1989. J Bone Miner Res. 7(2):221–227
doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650070214
Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, Licata A, Benhamou L, Geusens P, Flowers K, Stracke H, Seeman E (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA. 285(3):320–323
doi: 10.1001/jama.285.3.320
Stevenson MD, Davis SE, Kanis JA (2006) The hospitalisation costs and out-patient costs of fragility fractures. Women’s Health Med. 3:4
doi: 10.1383/wohm.2006.3.1.4
Black DM, Arden NK, Palermo L, Pearson J, Cummings SR (1999) Prevalent vertebral deformities predict hip fractures and new vertebral deformities but not wrist fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 14(5):821–828
doi: 10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.5.821
Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein S, Wasnich RD (1994) Pain and disability associated with new vertebral fractures and other spinal conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 47(3):231–239
doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90004-3
Ross PD (1997) Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med. 103(2A):30S–43S
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)90025-5
Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, Stone K, Jamal SA, Ensrud K, Segal M, Genant HK, Cummings SR (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 128(10):793–800
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-128-10-199805150-00001
Yule A, Parmar V, Latief K, Pande I (2014) Multiplanar reformatted three dimensional computed tomography reconstruction – a practical solution to improve diagnostic accuracy of vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int. 25(suppl 6):s659–s726
Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood JR (2000) Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int. 11(7):577–582
doi: 10.1007/s001980070078
Majumdar SR, Kim N, Colman I, Chahal AM, Raynond G, Jen H et al (2005) Incidental vertebral fractures discovered with chest radiography in the Emergency Department. Arch Intern Med. 165(8):905–909
doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.8.905
Mitchell RM, Jewell P, Javaid MK, McKean D, Ostlere SJ (2017) Reporting of vertebral fragility fractures: can radiologists help reduce the number of hip fractures. Arch Osteoporos 12(1):71
doi: 10.1007/s11657-017-0363-y
Howlett DC, Drinkwater KJ, Mahmood N, Illes J, Griffin J, Javaid K (2020) Radiology reporting of osteoporotic vertebral fragility fractures on computed tomography studies: results of a UK national audit. Eur Radiol. 30:4713–4723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06845-2
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06845-2
pubmed: 32435926
Ong T, Sahota O, Marshall L, Moran CG (2013) Re: Trends in hip fracture incidence and mortality in Chinese population from Hong Kong 2001-09. Age Ageing. 42(6):816
doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft149
Ong T, Sahota O, Marshall L (2015) Epidemiology of appendicular skeletal fractures: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Nottingham Fracture Liaison Service. J Orthop Sci. 20(3):517–521
doi: 10.1007/s00776-015-0700-1
Royal Osteoporosis Society (2017) Clinical guidance for the effective identification of vertebral fractures. ROS, Bath
Royal College of Radiologists (2016) Standards for the communication of radiological reports and fail-safe alert notification. RCR, London
Burns JE, Yao J, Summeres RM (2017) Vertebral body compression fractures and bone density: automated detection and classification on CT images. Radiology. 284(3):788–7997
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162100
Tomita N, Cheung VY, Hassanpour S (2018) Deep neural networks for automatic detection of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on CT scans. Comput Biol Med. 98:8–15
doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.05.011
Muehlematter UJ, Mannil M, Becker AS, Vokinger KN, Finkenstaedt T, Osterhoff G, Fischer MA, Guggenberger R (2019) Vertebral body insufficiency fractures: detection of vertebrae at risk on standard CT images using texture analysis and machine learning. Eur Radiol. 29(5):2207–2217
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5846-8
Bromiley PA, Staal J, Kariki P, Russell E, Chappell D, Cootes TF ASPIRE: Computer-aided opportunistic identification of vertebral fractures in computed tomography images. Bone Research Society BRS2020, Online, 6th-8th July 2020. https://boneresearchsociety.org/meeting/brs2020online/ .
Staal J, Peters A, Hyatt R, Javaid MK et al (2018) Multi-site opportunistic diagnosis of vertebral fragility fracture in computed tomography scans. Osteoporos Int. 29(S1):S205