Osteoporosis in Spinal Cord Injuries


Article Author:
Matthew Varacallo


Article Editor:
Peter Pizzutillo


Editors In Chief:
Rhonda Coffman
Lindsay Iverson
Heather Templin


Managing Editors:
Orawan Chaigasame
Carrie Smith
Abdul Waheed
Frank Smeeks
Kristina Soman-Faulkner
Benjamin Eovaldi
Radia Jamil
Sobhan Daneshfar
Saad Nazir
William Gossman
Pritesh Sheth
Hassam Zulfiqar
Navid Mahabadi
Steve Bhimji
John Shell
Matthew Varacallo
Ahmad Malik
Mark Pellegrini
James Hughes
Beata Beatty
Hajira Basit
Phillip Hynes


Updated:
6/4/2019 5:41:44 PM

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a condition describing a spectrum of overall compromised skeletal microarchitecture with clinical manifestations related to decreasing levels of bone mineral density (BMD).[1],[2] Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) vary significantly in terms of the range of clinical impact and overall compromise to a patient’s functional outcomes and quality of life. SCIs have long been recognized as a clinical culprit that ultimately leads to osteoporosis.[3] Clinicians are encouraged to recognize and appreciate the similarities and subtle nuances differentiating SCI-induced osteoporosis as a separate and distinct clinical sub-entity of the broader more generalized osteoporosis diagnosis.

Etiology

SCIs involve a classic bimodal distribution pattern.[4]

Younger patients are injured via high-energy mechanisms with the following approximate associated incidence rates[4],[5],[6]:

  • Motor Vehicle Accidents - 50% to 75%
  • Falls - 10% to 15%
  • Gunshot wounds - 10% to 15%
  • Sports - 10% to 15%
  • Iatrogenic - estimated incidence ranges from 3% to 25% of all SCIs occurring secondary to improper immobilization and patient transport

The elderly patient population sustains the majority of SCIs via minor trauma or mechanical falls. Elderly patients are predisposed to injury secondary to an underlying degenerative spine and associated spinal stenosis.[6]

Epidemiology

The prevalence of SCIs in the United States (US) increased by 30% from 1994 to 2012[3] In 2016, it was estimated that approximately 17,000 new SCI cases occurred in the US alone, representing an annual incidence of 54 cases per million population.[4] The prevalence of osteoporosis in the US is 10 million, with an additional 34 million considered to be at-risk and given a diagnosis of osteopenia, a term used to describe patients with BMD levels between that of normal reference range values but not low enough to be diagnostically considered osteoporotic.[2]

These aforementioned epidemiologic trends and patterns merge to result in over 50% of patients with a complete SCI developing osteoporosis by 1 year after the injury.[7] Long-term follow-up increases the prevalence rate to greater than 80%.[7] However, the most devastating complication secondary to osteoporosis developing after an SCI is the fragility fracture. Over half of these patients at long-term follow-up will sustain at least one low-impact fracture at some point after the SCI.[3]

Pathophysiology

Disuse Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

Patients sustaining SCIs are predisposed to disuse osteopenia from prolonged immobilization and overall decreased mobility and independent functional capabilities. Normal bone physiology relies on a process of active remodeling in a constant cycle of bone formation and bone resorption. In SCI, the generalized loss of mobility and ability to perform normal weight-bearing activities of daily living eventually uncouples the active remodeling process. The first 2 weeks after the initial injury is recognized as the most vulnerable period for decreased bone formation.[8]

Sclerostin, Vitamin D, Parathyroid Hormone

Recent studies suggest that sclerostin plays a critical role in SCI-induced bone loss. Sclerostin is produced primarily by osteocytes and inhibits bone formation via multiple mechanisms, including the up-regulation of receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and down-regulation of osteoprotegerin (OPG).[9] The end result of these pathways yields a net increase in bone resorption. 

Several studies have demonstrated increased levels of sclerostin in patients afflicted with clinical conditions resulting in disability and immobility. In addition to SCI patients, stroke patients are considered particularly vulnerable and at risk for acute and chronic compromise to BMD levels. Moreover, sclerostin levels appear to be highest during the initial post-injury phase, followed by decreasing levels detected in chronic SCI osteoporosis patients.[3]

SCI patients typically have abnormally low levels of vitamin D and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels in both the acute and chronic phases of SCI injury and recovery.  Acutely, PTH levels are low secondary to the initial hypercalcemia resulting from the sclerostin-induced bone resorption.[3]

Long-Term Implications

After the initial 2 weeks following SCI, studies have suggested that, while bone formation rates can return to normal levels, the regions of the body below the level of the lesion (i.e., sublesion levels) continue to experience a 4% per month reduction in BMD.  In addition, trabecular BMD is decreased by 40% by 2 years after the injury. Similarly, the long bones in the lower extremity undergo appreciable cortical thinning following SCI, predisposing to low-energy impact fractures.[10]

Beyond 2 to 5 years post-SCI, controversy remains in the literature with respect to ongoing decremental BMD rates into perpetuity. Some reports suggest that bone loss plateaus after 3 to 5 years, while others demonstrate a steady decremental loss in BMD.[3]

Fragility Fractures

SCIs represent conditions of significant morbidity and mortality.  With respect to osteoporosis, the most obvious and devastating clinical manifestation is the fragility fracture.[1] The initial rapid decrease in BMD levels, even in the youngest of patients, can yield multiple ensuing fragility fractures. It is worth noting that many of these fractures can occur spontaneously, leading to missed or delayed diagnoses.[3] 

Histopathology

Histologic osteoporotic specimens demonstrate thinning of the trabeculae, decreased osteon size, and enlarged haversian and marrow spaces.[11]

History and Physical

History

Clinicians should first consider the presentation of the patient with a history of SCI and note the time that elapsed between the present clinical evaluation and the original index injury. As mentioned earlier, the first 2 weeks after the SCI represents the most vulnerable time period for rapid decreases in BMD levels.

As part of a comprehensive history, the clinician should also consider predisposing conditions and the patient’s age; these could potentially compound conditions of already compromised BMD levels. For example, elderly patients presenting 2 weeks after an SCI were likely previously diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia before the injury. In effect, these patients are at the highest risk of developing spontaneous fractures without an appreciable underlying mechanism.

Other pearls for history taking include the following[1]:

  • History of fragility fractures (e.g., hip fractures, vertebral compression fractures)
  • Predisposing chronic medical conditions (e.g., eating disorders, asthma, malignancy, inflammatory conditions, endocrinopathies, malnutrition states)
  • Medication use (e.g., anti-seizure medications, chronic steroid use, proton-pump inhibitors, methotrexate)
  • History of early menopause or current post-menopausal status for female patients
  • History of anti-osteoporosis medication treatment(s)

A comprehensive history includes eliciting potential risk factors attributable to secondary bone loss. A thorough social history also should be obtained with attention to smoking history and chronic alcohol consumption. The physician should note the patient’s presenting overall nutritional status as well as any ongoing or previous calcium and/or vitamin D supplementation. A family history of osteoporosis also should be noted. The patient should be asked about any prior fractures, with focus given to low-energy ground-level fall mechanisms and any fractures after the age of 40.[2] Studies have demonstrated greater trabecular deterioration in post-menopausal women with a complete SCI compared to post-menopausal, ambulatory women.[2]

Physical Exam[12],[13]

Patients with SCI will present with varying clinical pictures, depending on the level of the injury. The clinician should note the specific injury type and classification. Descriptive categories include:

  • Paraplegia
    • SCI causing dysfunction from the trunk/pelvic regions to the lower extremities
    • Patients have spared upper extremity function which preserves varying levels of independent mobility
  • Tetraplegia
    • SCI injuries at the level of the cervical spine, leading to dysfunction of the upper extremities, trunk/pelvic regions, and lower extremities
    • Patients are particularly susceptible to progressive losses in BMD as well as spontaneous VCFs without an apparent mechanism
  • Complete SCI
    • Patient is diagnosed with a complete SCI in the acute setting after resolution of the spinal shock state (i.e., after the return of the patient’s bulbocavernosus reflex)
    • Patients have no spared motor or sensory function below the defined level of injury (i.e., American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] A injuries)
  • Incomplete SCI
    • Injuries are subdivided into syndromes of clinical manifestation based on the anatomic area of injury to the spinal cord
    • All of these syndromes demonstrate some preserved motor or sensory function below the defined level of injury
    • Syndromes include the following:
      • Anterior cord 
      • Posterior cord 
      • Central cord 
      • Cauda equina 
      • Conus medullaris 
      • Brown-Sequard

In addition to documenting a comprehensive motor and sensory exam, careful palpation and heightened clinical suspicion for spontaneous/occult fractures are critical. The most common location for spontaneous fractures is in the sublesion regions, especially the lower extremity long bones.[14] The clinician should note any focal or diffuse areas of swelling, including deformity and overall limb alignment.

Much attention should be given to the patient sustaining a fragility fracture, and early follow-up with an appropriate practitioner is highly encouraged to initiate treatment. Unfortunately, osteoporosis follow-up rates, even after fragility fractures have occurred, remain relatively low. Automated follow-up systems and fracture liaison services are two increasingly popular strategies to help improve on the historically reported and strikingly low follow-up rates of 1% to 10%.[15]

Evaluation

In general, osteoporosis follow-up trends and patterns have received increasing attention over the last 5 to 10 years, but SCI-induced osteoporosis follow-up patterns and treatment recommendations lag behind that of the more generalized osteoporosis diagnostic category.  These issues are further propagated secondary to the overall complexity of the SCI injury in addition to those previously mentioned and notoriously low follow-up rates for treatment of osteoporosis in general.

Osteoporosis Evaluation[1],[2]

The WHO has established dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans as the gold standard for assessing BMD levels. DXA scans utilize an x-ray beam to measure calcified tissue in targeted regions in the body. DXA scans are reported to be the most accurate diagnostic imaging modality with the least amount of radiation exposure. The lumbar spine (L2 to L4), the hip (compiled from the femoral neck, trochanters, and intertrochanteric regions), and the wrist are routinely included in the scan. The BMD reported reflects the absolute, patient-specific score determined from these measured anatomic areas. 

In addition, the scan also reports a t-score and a z-score.  The t-score is measured in standard deviations and reflects the difference between the patient's measured BMD and the mean value of BMD in healthy, young, matched controls (e.g., 30-year-old women). By definition, a normal BMD measurement is within one standard deviation of the young adult mean. The WHO defines t-scores between -1 and -2.5 as osteopenic and scores below -2.5 as osteoporotic. The z-score is also measured in standard deviations, but the z-score is compared to a healthy, age-matched control group. The z-score is most clinically relevant when obtaining a DXA scan in younger patients when secondary osteoporosis is being considered. A z-score less than -1.5 warrants a comprehensive secondary osteoporosis workup.

Standard laboratory workup includes checking calcium, phosphorus, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, liver function tests, creatinine (serum and urine), 25 hydroxyvitamin D, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free T4, and intact parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. Males should have a free testosterone level checked to rule out hypogonadism. 

The routine use of checking bone turnover markers (BTM) is debated. The utility of obtaining markers of bone resorption can be considered if it is being considered the possible underlying cause of secondary osteoporosis. Although reports question the reproducibility of such values, available tests include checking serum or urinary cross-links of type I collagen (deoxypyridinoline), N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx), or C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx).

The WHO created a fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX score) to predict the 10-year risk of sustaining a hip or other major osteoporotic fracture. These other major fragility fractures include fractures of the spine, wrist, forearm, or humerus. The assessment includes 12 questions weighted by the relative risk associated with a future fragility fracture event. Assessment includes age, sex, personal history of fracture, low BMI, oral steroid use, secondary osteoporosis, parental history of hip fracture, smoking status, and alcohol intake. In addition, optional BMD measurement values can be included from a prior DXA scan (if available) to provide a more comprehensive score report. 

The utility of the FRAX score is emphasized, especially in the osteopenic patient. Although fracture risk increases with decreases in BMD, the concept that the vast majority of these fragility fractures occur in osteopenic (as opposed to osteoporotic) patients poses a conflicting treatment paradigm. Thus, clinicians rely on the FRAX score to stratify which osteopenic patients exceed the risk threshold to warrant more aggressive pharmacologic treatments. [16],[17]

Treatment / Management

Clinicians are encouraged to recognize the similarities and subtle differences when managing osteoporotic patients versus SCI-induced osteoporotic patients. While some general underlying principles in treatment exist, there is an evolving treatment paradigm to be recognized in the SCI-induced osteoporosis subgroup of patients.

Mechanical Loading

Weight-bearing activity stimulates and creates an ideal stress environment to promote physiologic bone remodeling according to the Wolff law. Mechanical loading has demonstrated reversal capabilities in the SCI-induced osteoporotic process in long bones in the lower extremity. Specifically, cortical thickening is noted in response to applied mechanical stress and strain even after disuse osteopenia has ensued. However, studies have demonstrated the most ideal environment to maximize osteogenic potential and create a net anabolic activity in bone turnover comes from intermittent force application. Constant stimulation can lead to desensitization of the bone to the applied mechanical forces. [3],[17]

Vibration Therapy

Low magnitude mechanical signals (LMMS) as a therapeutic modality has demonstrated bone formation capabilities in both human and rodent models. However, beyond limited case reports there is little evidence available to advocate its definitive therapeutic potential.  Similarly, low-intensity vibration treatment protocols have shown some promising results in a small case series of SCI-induced osteoporotic patients. [17],[18]

Calcium and Vitamin D

Without question, all patients should be taking calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Patients should be educated on the recommended daily intake for calcium and vitamin D. The National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends 1200 to 1500 mg of calcium per day and 800 to 1000 IUs of daily vitamin D for adults over the age of 50. In the setting of SCI-induced osteoporosis, all patients should begin supplementation regardless of age at presentation. [19]

Anti-Osteoporotic Pharmacotherapy Options

Pharmacotherapy agents work through either anti-resorptive or anabolic means. In general, bisphosphonates are the most commonly prescribed medication class for osteoporosis treatment. These drugs are divided into non-nitrogen and nitrogen-containing compounds. The latter are considered first-line therapy for osteoporosis.[2] However, a major concern with SCI-induced osteoporosis coupled with the bisphosphonate anti-resorptive mechanism on bone is the inability to actually demonstrate measurable increases in BMD levels.[3]

In one study, alendronate was able to prevent further bone loss in 55 patients with chronic SCI-induced osteoporosis at the 2-year follow-up.  However, this is a stark contrast to alendronate’s proven track record and documented capabilities to increase BMD values measured in ambulatory (i.e., not SCI-induced), post-menopausal women with osteoporosis. [3]

While alendronate, risedronate, and intravenous zoledronic acid have all demonstrated reduced fragility fracture rates in the general osteoporosis population, the clinical evidence has yet to be demonstrated in the SCI-induced osteoporosis population.[20] Clinicians are encouraged to recognize the subtle differences in efficacy and evidence-based approaches for the pharmacologic management of these vulnerable patients.

Denosumab

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-? ligand (RANKL), has recently been studied specifically in patients afflicted with SCI-induced osteoporosis. In 2016, one study demonstrated increases in lumbar and femoral BMD values as measured by DXA scans after 1 year of treatment compared to baseline BMD values. Denosumab was administered in a 60 mg every 6 months protocol during the study period. [3]

Anabolic Agents and Emerging Pharmacotherapy Agents

Teriparatide is a recombinant form of PTH that stimulates osteoblasts to produce more bone. Teriparatide is now FDA approved for osteoporosis treatment in males and females, but more studies are needed in order to improve our understanding of its effects on BMD levels and clinical outcomes in SCI-induced osteoporotic patients. [18],[21]

Activins are a group of agents belonging to the transforming growth factor-beta family and are highly expressed in bone. Studies have demonstrated that blocking the type II activin receptor, promotes bone formation secondary to the inhibition of activin A ligand signaling. In similar fashion, studies have also suggested the same conclusion when targeting cathepsin-K inhibitors. To date, there is little if any literature specifically targeting patients with SCI-induced osteoporosis. Future studies are warranted to delineate clinical efficacy. [3]

Differential Diagnosis

The key clinical elements to diagnosing SCI-induced osteoporosis include recognizing the time since the original SCI injury, establishing a baseline BMD value via a DXA scan, and following these patients closely to monitor the progression of bone loss. A relevant differential diagnosis pattern would entail initially categorizing a patient based on the bone loss spectrum via the established WHO criteria[19]:

  • Normal BMD = t-score of -1.0 or greater (i.e., within 1 standard deviation below normal, healthy control group reference values)
  • Osteopenia = t-score between -1.0 and -2.5
  • Osteoporosis = t-score below -2.5

Also relevant in the differential diagnosis is considering underlying pre-existing medical conditions and medication use which may have already predisposed the patient to compromised BMD levels. Finally, always keep a heightened clinical suspicion for spontaneous fragility fractures, especially in the most compromised patients with SCI.

Prognosis

  • Overall, the prognosis and decremental trend in BMD levels is worse compared to the general at-risk osteoporosis population
  • By 1 year after the index SCI, over 50% of these patients will have osteoporosis
  • Over 80% of chronic SCI patients develop osteoporosis
  • Clinical efficacy and response to anti-osteoporosis treatment in these patients is less predictable compared to post-menopausal ambulatory women

Also, note the following timeline for prognostic implications.

  • Two weeks following SCI: the patient at risk for rapid decreases in BMD levels
  • Sublesion level bone loss: approximately 4% per month reduction in BMD can be expected
  • Trabecular BMD bone loss: approximately 40% by 2 years after SCI injury
  • Beyond 2 to 5 years post-injury: Controversy remains in the literature concerning ongoing decremental BMD rates into perpetuity. Some reports suggest that bone loss plateaus after 3 to 5 years, while others demonstrate chronic decreases in BMD.[3],[8],[22]

Complications

  • The major complication of SCI-induced osteoporosis is the fragility fracture.[3],[10]
  • The majority of fragility fractures occur at the sublesion levels, especially long bones.[10]
  • Many fragility fractures in patients with SCI occur spontaneously and can be missed or delayed in diagnosis.[10]

Consultations

Patients with SCI should be immediately referred to a bone metabolic center, clinic, or establish early and regular care with an experienced physician capable of treating osteoporosis. Historically, follow-up rates for osteoporosis patients are notoriously low given the lack of a standardized care pathway. Treating physicians can include but are not limited to general practitioners, internists, endocrinologists, and/or some orthopedic surgeons.[2],[15]

Deterrence and Patient Education

Patients with SCI should be educated about their acute and chronic risk of decremental BMD levels and the potential for low-impact fractures. Particularly, emphasis should focus on the initial and most vulnerable clinical window acutely following the SCI. The core treatment options for osteoporotic patients involve early education on how to achieve and maintain healthy bone mass levels and extensive education and counseling on the relevant social, environmental, and lifestyle risk factors that compromise bone health.[2]

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Osteoporosis secondary to spinal cord injury (SCI) presents a unique clinical subset of patients in the treatment of osteoporosis and at-risk patient populations. The care of these patients is optimized when a multifaceted and multi-phase approach is considered that involves nurses, pharmacists, and clinicians.

  • Acute SCI: Initial presentation of the injured patient warrants diagnostic and treatment collaboration between the trauma team, spine surgeons (orthopedic surgery or neurosurgery), medical specialists, and intensive care physicians and nurses. The initial treatment phase should be given the utmost priority and will vary in terms of its complexity depending on the exact nature of the SCI.
  • Bone mineral density rapid progression phase: During the initial 2 weeks following the acute SCI onset, physicians across all specialties must remain cognizant of the vulnerable period of rapid BMD loss. While knowledge of BMD losses over time in SCI-induced osteoporosis patients remains controversial, this acute phase would be a reasonable time to consult or refer the patient to a BMD-specialized clinic. Ideally, the clinic is experienced in initiating, managing, and following these patients over the long-term to combat the early onset of osteoporosis. The latter is especially imperative in younger patient populations. 
  • Rehabilitation phases: As these patients recover and rehabilitate over the long-term, equal attention should be given to the rehabilitation of the patient's overall mobility in addition to his or her overall bone health. This requires physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) clinicians, all physiotherapist-related personnel, and nurses caring for these patients to maintain a heightened clinical suspicion to avoid missed or delayed diagnosis of subtle fragility fractures. These fractures can occur without apparent mechanism (i.e., simple transfer of a patient from bed-to-chair).  In the event that anti-osteoporosis medication has not been implemented or at least considered for these patients, the appropriate referrals should be made to the appropriate physician or clinic. [Level II]

 


Interested in Participating?

We are looking for contributors to author, edit, and peer review our vast library of review articles and multiple choice questions. In as little as 2-3 hours you can make a significant contribution to your specialty. In return for a small amount of your time, you will receive free access to all content and you will be published as an author or editor in eBooks, apps, online CME/CE activities, and an online Learning Management System for students, teachers, and program directors that allows access to review materials in over 500 specialties.

Improve Content - Become an Author or Editor

This is an academic project designed to provide inexpensive peer-reviewed Apps, eBooks, and very soon an online CME/CE system to help students identify weaknesses and improve knowledge. We would like you to consider being an author or editor. Please click here to learn more. Thank you for you for your interest, the StatPearls Publishing Editorial Team.

Osteoporosis in Spinal Cord Injuries - Questions

Take a quiz of the questions on this article.

Take Quiz
Following spinal cord injuries, when is the most vulnerable time period for rapid decreases in bone mineral density levels?



Click Your Answer Below


Would you like to access teaching points and more information on this topic?

Improve Content - Become an Author or Editor and get free access to the entire database, free eBooks, as well as free CME/CE as it becomes available. If interested, please click on "Sign Up" to register.

Purchase- Want immediate access to questions, answers, and teaching points? They can be purchased above at Apps and eBooks.


Sign Up
Which of the following statements regarding the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI) induced osteoporosis is true?



Click Your Answer Below


Would you like to access teaching points and more information on this topic?

Improve Content - Become an Author or Editor and get free access to the entire database, free eBooks, as well as free CME/CE as it becomes available. If interested, please click on "Sign Up" to register.

Purchase- Want immediate access to questions, answers, and teaching points? They can be purchased above at Apps and eBooks.


Sign Up
A patient presents 1 year out from a spinal cord injury (SCI). A recent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan T-score is -1.5. This patient would most appropriately be diagnosed with which of the following?



Click Your Answer Below


Would you like to access teaching points and more information on this topic?

Improve Content - Become an Author or Editor and get free access to the entire database, free eBooks, as well as free CME/CE as it becomes available. If interested, please click on "Sign Up" to register.

Purchase- Want immediate access to questions, answers, and teaching points? They can be purchased above at Apps and eBooks.


Sign Up
At long-term follow-up of more than 3 to 5 years, approximately what percentage of patients with a spinal cord injury will be expected to have osteoporosis?



Click Your Answer Below


Would you like to access teaching points and more information on this topic?

Improve Content - Become an Author or Editor and get free access to the entire database, free eBooks, as well as free CME/CE as it becomes available. If interested, please click on "Sign Up" to register.

Purchase- Want immediate access to questions, answers, and teaching points? They can be purchased above at Apps and eBooks.


Sign Up
A 34-year-old female presents to the trauma bay with an acute spinal cord injury. After initial resuscitation and stabilization of the patient, you begin a thorough review of her past medical history. Which of the following increases this patient's risk for decreasing bone mineral density in the long-term?



Click Your Answer Below


Would you like to access teaching points and more information on this topic?

Improve Content - Become an Author or Editor and get free access to the entire database, free eBooks, as well as free CME/CE as it becomes available. If interested, please click on "Sign Up" to register.

Purchase- Want immediate access to questions, answers, and teaching points? They can be purchased above at Apps and eBooks.


Sign Up

Osteoporosis in Spinal Cord Injuries - References

References

Varacallo M,Varacallo1 M,Pizzutillo P, Osteopenia null. 2018 Jan     [PubMed]
Varacallo MA,Fox EJ, Osteoporosis and its complications. The Medical clinics of North America. 2014 Jul     [PubMed]
Battaglino RA,Lazzari AA,Garshick E,Morse LR, Spinal cord injury-induced osteoporosis: pathogenesis and emerging therapies. Current osteoporosis reports. 2012 Dec     [PubMed]
SCI facts and figures 2016. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2016 Nov     [PubMed]
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Facts and Figures at a Glance. The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2016 May     [PubMed]
Frontera JE,Mollett P, Aging with Spinal Cord Injury: An Update. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America. 2017 Nov     [PubMed]
Szollar SM,Martin EM,Sartoris DJ,Parthemore JG,Deftos LJ, Bone mineral density and indexes of bone metabolism in spinal cord injury. American journal of physical medicine     [PubMed]
Gifre L,Vidal J,Carrasco JL,Muxi A,Portell E,Monegal A,Guañabens N,Peris P, Risk factors for the development of osteoporosis after spinal cord injury. A 12-month follow-up study. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2015 Sep     [PubMed]
Zhao W,Li X,Peng Y,Qin Y,Pan J,Li J,Xu A,Ominsky MS,Cardozo C,Feng JQ,Ke HZ,Bauman WA,Qin W, Sclerostin Antibody Reverses the Severe Sublesional Bone Loss in Rats After Chronic Spinal Cord Injury. Calcified tissue international. 2018 Jun 21     [PubMed]
Jiang SD,Dai LY,Jiang LS, Osteoporosis after spinal cord injury. Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2006 Feb     [PubMed]
Marcu F,Bogdan F,Muţiu G,Lazăr L, The histopathological study of osteoporosis. Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie. 2011     [PubMed]
Sezer N,Akkuş S,Uğurlu FG, Chronic complications of spinal cord injury. World journal of orthopedics. 2015 Jan 18     [PubMed]
Barbeau H,Ladouceur M,Norman KE,Pépin A,Leroux A, Walking after spinal cord injury: evaluation, treatment, and functional recovery. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 1999 Feb     [PubMed]
Bittar CK,Cliquet A Jr,Dos Santos Flöter M, Utility of quantitative ultrasound of the calcaneus in diagnosing osteoporosis in spinal cord injury patients. American journal of physical medicine     [PubMed]
Varacallo MA,Fox EJ,Paul EM,Hassenbein SE,Warlow PM, Patients' response toward an automated orthopedic osteoporosis intervention program. Geriatric orthopaedic surgery     [PubMed]
Phuan-Udom R,Lektrakul N,Katchamart W, The association between 10-year fracture risk by FRAX and osteoporotic fractures with disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical rheumatology. 2018 Jul 23     [PubMed]
Alejandro P,Constantinescu F, A Review of Osteoporosis in the Older Adult: An Update. Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America. 2018 Aug     [PubMed]
Edwards WB,Simonian N,Haider IT,Anschel AS,Chen D,Gordon KE,Gregory EK,Kim KH,Parachuri R,Troy KL,Schnitzer TJ, Effects of Teriparatide and Vibration on Bone Mass and Bone Strength in People with Bone Loss and Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 2018 Jun 15     [PubMed]
Akkawi I,Zmerly H, Osteoporosis: Current Concepts. Joints. 2018 Jun     [PubMed]
Schnitzer TJ,Kim K,Marks J,Yeasted R,Simonian N,Chen D, Zoledronic Acid Treatment After Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Trial. PM     [PubMed]
Gordon KE,Wald MJ,Schnitzer TJ, Effect of parathyroid hormone combined with gait training on bone density and bone architecture in people with chronic spinal cord injury. PM     [PubMed]
Jiang SD,Jiang LS,Dai LY, Mechanisms of osteoporosis in spinal cord injury. Clinical endocrinology. 2006 Nov     [PubMed]

Disclaimer

The intent of StatPearls is to provide practice questions and explanations to assist you in identifying and resolving knowledge deficits. These questions and explanations are not intended to be a source of the knowledge base of all of medicine, nor is it intended to be a board or certification review of NP-Adult Acute Gerontology. The authors or editors do not warrant the information is complete or accurate. The reader is encouraged to verify each answer and explanation in several references. All drug indications and dosages should be verified before administration.

StatPearls offers the most comprehensive database of free multiple-choice questions with explanations and short review chapters ever developed. This system helps physicians, medical students, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals identify education deficits and learn new concepts. StatPearls is not a board or certification review system for NP-Adult Acute Gerontology, it is a learning system that you can use to help improve your knowledge base of medicine for life-long learning. StatPearls will help you identify your weaknesses so that when you are ready to study for a board or certification exam in NP-Adult Acute Gerontology, you will already be prepared.

Our content is updated continuously through a multi-step peer review process that will help you be prepared and review for a thorough knowledge of NP-Adult Acute Gerontology. When it is time for the NP-Adult Acute Gerontology board and certification exam, you will already be ready. Besides online study quizzes, we also publish our peer-reviewed content in eBooks and mobile Apps. We also offer inexpensive CME/CE, so our content can be used to attain education credits while you study NP-Adult Acute Gerontology.