medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2014, Number 09

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2014; 82 (09)

Comparison fracture risk calculated by FRAX tool

Carranza-Lira S, Lanuza-López MC, Sandoval-Barragán MP

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 591-594
PDF size: 294.79 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The FRAX tool allows calculate the 10 year probability of fracture risk in men and women.
Objective: To compare the 10 years fracture risk calculated with the FRAX tool using or not bone densitometry.
Material and methods: A prospective, cross-sectional, open a comparative study was done with 40-80-year-old women, who were evaluated with bone densitometry. To calculate the fracture risk the FRAX tool was used with and without bone densitometry in each patient. Both results were compared with Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: The mean age was 54.2 ± 8.7 years. The median of the FRAX calculated risks without using bone densitometry was for major fracture 2.4 (1-12) and hip 0.3 (0-5.2). The calculated risks using bone densitometry was for major fracture 2.3 (1.2-11) and for hip 0.2 (0-3.6), without statistically significant differences among them. The calculated T score with FRAX was -1.0 (-2.7 ± 1.9)
Conclusions: The results obtained with the FRAX tool using or not bone densitometry were similar. These findings will allow using this instrument in a greater number of patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Shuler FD, Conkeski J, Kendall D, Salava J. Understanding the burden of osteoporosis and use of the World Health Organization FRAX. Orthopedics 2012;35:798-805. Doi:10.3928/01477447-20120822-12.

  2. Greenspan SL, Perera S, Nace D, Zukowski KS, Ferchak MA, Lee CJ, et al. FRAX of fiction: determining optimal screening strategies for treatment of osteoporosis in residents in long-term care facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:684-90.

  3. Leslie WD, Majumdar SR, Lix LM, Johansson H, Oden A, McCloskey E, et al. High fracture probability with FRAX usually indicates densitometric osteoporosis: implications for clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 2012; 23:391-7.

  4. Cummins NM, Poku EK, Towler MR, O’Driscoll OM, Ralston SH. Clinical risk factors for osteoporosis in Ireland and the UK: a comparison of FRAX and QFractureScores. Calcif Tissue Int 2011;89:172-7.

  5. Kanis JA, Gluer CC. An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:192-202.

  6. Kanis JA, McCloskey E, Johansson H, Oden A, Leslie WD. FRAX® with and without bone mineral density. Calcif Tissue Int 2012;90:1-13.

  7. Tramollieres FA, Pouillas JM, Drewniak N, Laparra J, Ribot CA, Dargent-Molina P. Fracture risk prediction using BMD and clinical risk factors in early postmenopausal women: sensitivity of the WHO FRAX tool. J Bone Miner Res 2010;25:1002-9.

  8. Tramollieres F, Cochet T, Cohade C, Pouills JM, Ribot C. Fracture risk in early postmenopausal women assessed using FRAX. Joint Bone Spine 2010;77:345-8.

  9. Licata AA. Bond density, bone quality, and FRAX: changing concepts in osteoporosis management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:92-6.

  10. Middleton RG, Shabani F, Uzoigwe CE, Shoaib A, Moqsith M, Venkatesan M. FRAX and the assessment of the risk of developing a fragility fracture. J Bone Joint Surg 20112;94- B:1313-1320.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com