Management of dorso-lumbar pain secondary to anisotropic deterioration of vertebral trabecular architecture through clodronate treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple mechanisms underlie the connection between osteoporosis and vertebral pain, beyond the established correlation from the occurrence of fragility fractures, both clinical and morphometric. Among these mechanisms are alterations in certain bone quality parameters, which result in the deterioration of vertebral trabecular architecture and have been correlated with the genesis of vertebral microfractures. Identifying these mechanisms necessitates a reinterpretation of spinal pain in osteoporotic patients without any evidence of fracture, often attributed to degenerative arthritic changes. This has important therapeutic implications, allowing for the possibility of effective pain treatments specific to the type of pain involved. Similarly to vertebral fractures, microfractures may also play a role in causing postural deviations and gait alterations through an antalgic mechanism, as detected by baropodometric examination. These, in turn, can contribute to the risk of falls and new vertebral fractures. Based on these premises, it was decided to combine these observations by evaluating the use of clodronate in the treatment of dorso-lumbar pain secondary to the deterioration of trabecular microarchitecture and in the prevention of trabecular microfractures. This was done using baropodometry as a tool for detecting vertebral pain and radiofrequency echographic multi spectrometry (REMS) technology for determining bone mineral density (BMD) and bone quality characteristics.METHODS: Thirty-six female patients with dorso-lumbar pain and densitometric T-scores between -2 and -2.5 were enrolled. All patients were prescribed clodronate 200 mg every 2 weeks, calcium carbonate 500 mg daily, and cholecalciferol 25,000 IU twice a month. All patients underwent REMS densitometry at T0 and T2 (8 months) and baropodometric examination at T0, T1 (4 months), and T2. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving a 20% reduction in the WOMAC pain index (Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), and the secondary outcome was the reduction in analgesic consumption in terms of days of use per month. Statistical significance of results was determined using Student’s t-test.RESULTS: All patients included in the study showed alterations in foot support in both static and dynamic conditions at baseline. At T2, there was a statistically significant reduction (P<0.001) in the average differences in these alterations compared to T0 and T1; all patients showed a significant reduction in the Womac pain score (P<0.03 vs. baseline) and average paracetamol consumption (P<0.02 vs. baseline). In REMS, there was a slight improvement in the average BMD value over the 8-month study period, while the average Fragility Score values (a dimensionless indicator independent of BMD and directly correlated with bone microarchitecture) at T0 remained constant at T2, showing slight improvement in some cases .CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight the analgesic efficacy of clodronate, supporting the possibility that, in osteoporotic patients, even minimal structural alterations in vertebral trabecular bone, in the absence of clinical or morphometric fractures, can cause pain. This suggests reconsidering the often purely mechanical, arthritic genesis attribution of the pain. The analgesic action of clodronate may thus also be expressed through the improvement of bone quality aspects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".