Regional bone mineral density differences measured by quantitative computed tomography: does the standard clinically...

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.

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.

This is a retrospective case series.

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.

The outcome measure was BMD measured by QCT.

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 bodies of the lumbosacral spine (L3, L4, L5, S1) were evaluated.

In total, 296 consecutive patients (55.4% female, mean age of 63.1 years) with available preoperative CT were included. The vertebral BMD values showed a gradual decrease from L1 to L3 and increase from L4 to S1 (L1=118.8 mg/cm³, L2=116.6 mg/cm³, L3=112.5 mg/cm³, L4=122.4 mg/cm³, L5=135.3 mg/cm³, S1=157.4 mg/cm³). There was strong correlation between the L1-L2 average and the average of the other lumbosacral vertebrae (L3-S1) with a Pearson's correlation coefficient (r=0.85). We also analyzed the correlation between the L1-L2 average and each individual lumbosacral vertebra. Similar relationships were observed (r value, 0.67-0.87), with the strongest correlation between the L1-L2 average and L3 (r=0.87).

Our data demonstrate regional BMD differences throughout the lumbosacral spine. Nevertheless, there is high correlation between the clinically used L1-L2 average and the BMD values in the other lumbosacral vertebrae. We, therefore, conclude the standard clinically used L1-L2 BMD average is a useful bone quantity measure of the entire lumbosacral spine in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion.