Correlation between bone density measurements on CT or MRI versus DEXA scan: A systematic review

Background: Novel methods of bone density assessment using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been increasingly reported in the spine surgery literature. Correlations between these newer measurements and traditional Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) is not well known. The purpose of this study is to perform an updated systematic review of correlations between bone mineral density (BMD) from CT or MRI and DEXA. Methods: Articles published between 2011 and 2021 that reported correlations between the CT-HU or MRI measurements to DEXA t-scores or BMD of lumbar spine or hip were included in this systematic review. Results: A total of 25 studies (15 CT, 10 MRI) met the inclusion criteria with a total number of 2,745 patients. The pooled correlation coefficient of spine CT-HU versus spine DEXA, spine CT-HU versus hip DEXA and spine CT-HU versus lowest t-score were 0.60, 0.50 and 0.60 respectively. Regarding spine DEXA parameters, the pooled r2 for spine CT-HU versus spine t-score was 0.684 and spine CT-HU versus spine BMD was 0.598. Furthermore, in patients undergoing spine surgery in four studies, the pooled correlation between spine CT and spine DEXA was (r2: 0.64). In MRI studies, the pooled r2 of spine MRI versus spine DEXA and spine MRI versus hip DEXA were -0.41 and -0.44 respectively. Conclusions: CT-HU has stronger correlations with DEXA than MRI measurements. Lumbar CT-HU has the highest pooled correlation (r2 = 0.6) with both spine DEXA and lowest skeletal t-score followed by lumbar CT-HU with hip DEXA (r2 = 0.5) and lumbar MRI with hip (r2 = 0.44) and spine (r2 = 0.41) DEXA. Both imaging modalities achieved only a moderate correlation with DEXA. Few studies in both modalities have investigated the correlation in spine surgery populations and the available data shows that the correlations are worse in the degenerative spine population. A careful interruption of CT HU and MRI measurement when evaluation of BMD as they only moderately correlated with DEXA scores. At this time, it is unclear which modality is a better predictor of mechanical complications and clinical outcomes in spine surgery patients

Comparison of revision surgery for pseudarthrosis with or without adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Background: Patients with a pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) may have concurrent adjacent segment disease (ASD). Although prior studies have shown posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) is effective in repairing pseudarthrosis, improvement in patient reported outcomes (PROs) has been marginal. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of PCDF in achieving symptom relief in patients with pseudarthrosis after ACDF and whether that is altered by the additional treatment of ASD. Methods: Thirty-two patients with pseudarthrosis were compared with 31 patients with pseudarthrosis and concurrent ASD after ACDF who underwent revision PCDF with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Primary outcomes measures included the neck disability index (NDI), and numerical rating scale (NRS) scores for neck and arm pain. Secondary measures included estimated blood loss (EBL), operating room (OR) time, and length of stay. Results: Demographics between cohorts were similar, however there was a significantly higher mean body mass index (BMI) in the group with concurrent ASD (32.23 vs. 27.76, p=.007). Patients with concurrent ASD had more levels fused during PCDF (3.7 vs. 1.9, p<.001), greater EBL (165 cc vs. 106 cc, p=.054), and longer OR time (256 minutes vs. 202 minutes, p<.000). Preoperative PROs for NDI (56.7 vs. 56.5, p=.954), NRS arm pain (5.9 vs. 5.7, p=.758), and NRS neck pain (6.6 vs. 6.8, p=.726) were similar in both cohorts. At 12 months patients with concurrent ASD experienced a slightly greater, but not statistically significant, improvement in PROs (Δ NDI 4.40 vs. -1.44, Δ NRS neck pain 1.17 vs. 0.42, Δ NRS arm pain 1.28 vs. 0.10, p=.107). Conclusions: PCDF is a standard procedure for treatment of pseudarthrosis following ACDF, however improvements in PROs are marginal. Slightly greater improvements were seen in patients whose indication for surgery also included concurrent ASD, rather than a diagnosis of pseudarthrosis alone