CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07027306Updated May 13, 2026

The Osteoporotic Fracture Classification-based Scoring System for Treatment Decision in Thoracolumbar Osteoporotic Fractures

An observational study in Osteoporotic Fractures and Osteoporosis, sponsored by AO Foundation, AO Spine. Recruiting at 15 sites in 14 countries. Open to participants aged 50 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-13.

Sponsored by AO Foundation, AO Spine · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
648
Ages
50 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is an international multicenter prospective observational study. Patients with radiologically confirmed, symptomatic, single- or multilevel contiguous TL (from T1 to L5) fractures as a result of primary osteoporosis will be recruited from participating clinics/hospitals (ie, study sites). Fractures included are insufficiency fractures (confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and traumatic fractures (low-energy trauma, confirmed by computed tomography [CT] or MRI).

Read the detailed description

This is an international multicenter prospective observational study. Postmenopausal women ≥ 50 years old and men > 60 years old with radiologically confirmed, symptomatic, single- or multilevel contiguous TL (from T1 to L5) fractures as a result of primary osteoporosis will be recruited from participating clinics/hospitals (ie, study sites). Fractures included are insufficiency fractures (confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and traumatic fractures (low-energy trauma, confirmed by computed tomography [CT] or MRI).

All osteoporotic TL fractures will be classified using the OF classification system (OF 1 to OF 5). Only the most severe fracture will be used to calculate the OF score. The OF score will be subsequently calculated to aid the surgeons' decision making on the initial treatment plan, which is categorized as either nonsurgical or surgical treatment.

To address the primary study objective, depending on whether the treating surgeons' eventual initial treatment decisions agree with the OF score recommendations, patients will be divided into two groups: 1) patients whose initial treatment is in accordance with the OF score recommendations (the Accordance group), and 2) patients whose initial treatment is in discordance with the OF score recommendations (the Discordance group). Accordance refers to 1) when the OF score is > 6, surgical treatment is prescribed by the treating surgeons, 2) when the OF score is \< 6, nonsurgical treatment only is prescribed by the treating surgeons, and 3) when the OF score is 6, either surgical or nonsurgical treatment is prescribed (Note: any surgeons' decision is deemed in accordance with the OF score as the system leaves the decision to the surgeons' discretion in this situation).

Accordance/Discordance group assignment is based on the agreement/discrepancy between the eventual treatment and the recommendations from the OF score that is obtained up to Day 0, although OF scores may be calculated at follow-ups (FUs) for subsequent treatment decision making (eg, whether the treatment plan needs to be modified).

Depending on the actual initial treatment assigned to the patients by the treating surgeons, patients will be divided into two groups: 1) patients assigned to receive nonsurgical treatment (the Nonsurgical group), and 2) patients assigned to receive surgery (the Surgical group).

Day 0 refers to the day when the initial treatment is decided and starts (categorized as nonsurgical or surgical treatment). Subsequent FUs will be calculated in reference to Day 0. Patients will be followed up clinically at discharge, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months.

The primary outcome of the study is the return to the mobility level before the injury or symptom onset (as reported by the patient). The FU period for the primary endpoint of the study is 3 months (short-term), and 12 months for the secondary endpoints (long-term).

02

Conditions studied

  • Osteoporotic Fractures
  • Osteoporosis
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
50 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Postmenopausal women ≥ 50 years old or men > 60 years old

Inclusion criteria

  • Postmenopausal women ≥ 50 years old or men > 60 years old

    o Menopause refers to amenorrhea for 1 complete year.

  • Radiologically confirmed new diagnosis of symptomatic, single or multilevel TL (from T1 to L5) fractures, ie, the index fracture(s).

    • In case of a multilevel fracture, the fracture must be contiguous.
    • The index fracture is confirmed by MRI as an insufficiency (or fragility) fracture or is confirmed by CT or MRI as traumatic fracture (low-energy trauma)
  • The index fracture(s) is a result of primary osteoporosis. Diagnosis of primary osteoporosis is based on any of the followings in the absence of causes for secondary osteoporosis (such as long-term use of steroids, rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes mellitus [DM], and other metabolic bone disorders [eg, rickets/osteomalacia, Paget's disease, osteogenesis imperfecta, and primary hyperparathyroidism]) [13-15]:

    • A T-score ≤ -2.5 in the lumbar spine, femoral neck, total hip, or 1/3 radius
    • Presence of fragility fracture (either a previous fragility fracture or the index fracture is a fragility fracture). Fragility fractures are fractures due to no or low-energy trauma, eg, slips, trips, or falls from less than double the body height, and heavy lifting.
  • The index osteoporotic TL fracture being classified based on the OF Classification from OF 1 to OF 5:

    • OF 1: No deformation (vertebral body edema on MRI using short tau inversion recovery [STIR] sequence)
    • OF 2: Deformation of one endplate
    • OF 3: Deformation of one endplate with distinct posterior wall involvement
    • OF 4: Deformation of both endplates with/without posterior wall involvement
    • OF 5: Injuries with anterior or posterior tension band failure
  • Ability to provide informed consent according to the EC/IRB defined and approved procedures

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with spinal tumors
  • Patients with concomitant cervical fractures
  • Patients showing any signs of spinal infections
  • Patients with fractures due to high-energy or high-impact trauma, eg, a fall from double the body height or higher, motor vehicle accident with > 100 km/h in cars with airbags, or motor vehicle accident > 50 km/h without airbags, polytrauma
  • Patients with concomitant fracture in the pelvis, upper extremities, and/or lower extremities which could affect the main study outcomes (specifically, patient mobility and pain)
  • Patients for whom no FUs are possible
  • Previous instrumented surgery in the affected spine levels
  • Patients with single-level fracture or contiguous multilevel fracture adjacent to previous instrumented surgery
  • Patients who are mentally impaired and therefore not able to adhere to the study procedures and data collection
  • Patients who are bedridden before the index fracture
  • Recent history of substance abuse (ie, recreational drugs and alcohol) that would preclude reliable assessments
  • Participation in any other medical device or medicinal product study within the previous month that could influence the results of the present study
04

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
648 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • OF score accordance group

    Initial treatment decision in accordance with the OF score recommendations

    Procedure: Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws)

  • OF score discordance group

    Initial treatment decision in discordance with the OF score recommendations

    Procedure: Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws)

Interventions

  • ProcedurePosterior stabilization (pedicle screws)

    * Any other type of solely vertebral augmentation (stents, etc.), specify * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with screw augmentation * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with screw augmentation and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with vertebral osteotomy (pedicle subtraction osteotomy or similar) * Combined posterior and anterior stabilization

    Also known as: Kyphoplasty, Vertebroplasty

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Return to mobility

    Determination in patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fractures whether an initial treatment adhering to the OF score recommendations (the Accordance group) generates better short-term patient outcomes regarding time to return to mobility level before injury or symptom onset within 3 months after treatment compared to an initial treatment decision not adhering to the OF score recommendations (the Discordance group). The primary outcome of the study is return to the mobility level. Patients will be instructed to evaluate their overall mobility level in reference to their pre-injury or pre-symptom mobility status. This primary outcome will be reported by the patient and measured on a continuous scale of 0 to 100 (0 = no return at all, 100 = full return). Primary endpoint of the study is the time (days) to return of pre-injury or pre-symptom mobility level within 3 months after Day 0. Threshold of returning is defined as ≥ 80 on the continuous scale.

    Time frame: From day of treatment to the end of the first 3 months after treatment.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Comparison of return to mobility (categorical scale)

    To compare the proportion (in percentage) of patients returning to mobility level (measured in 4 categories: Not at all returned, Partially returned with major restrictions, Partially returned with minor restrictions, and Fully returned) at 3 months (short-term outcome) and 12 months (long-term outcome) between the Accordance and the Discordance group.

    Time frame: At all predefined visits from discharge to 12months post treatment

  2. Comparison of the extent of return to mobility

    To compare the extend of return (measured on a continuous scale of 0 to 100, with 0 representing no return at all and 100 representing full return) at 3 months (short-term outcome) and 12 months (long-term outcome) between the Accordance and the Discordance group.

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  3. Comparison of clinical outcome

    To compare the clinical outcome at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group). Clinical outcome defined as any of the following events occurring: New or adjacent vertebral fracture, crossover to surgery or additional surgery, use of analgesic, fracture- or treatment-related adverse events.

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  4. Comparison of the proportion return to mobility

    To compare the proportion of patients returning to pre-injury mobility level at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  5. Comparison of Timed Up & Go test

    To compare timed Up \& Go in seconds at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  6. Comparison of daily activities

    To compare the score of the Barthel Index (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater functional independence) at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  7. Comparison of pain NRS (Numeric Rate Scale)

    To compare the score of pain Numeric Rate Scale (ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 representing no pain and 10 the worst imaginable pain) at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  8. Comparison of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index)

    To compare the score of ODI (ranging from 0 to 100%, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  9. Comparison of quality of live

    To compare the score of EQ-5D-5L (ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 representing death and 1 perfect health) at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  10. Comparison of the AO Spine PROST

    To compare the score of AO Spine PROST (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher score indicating better recovery of functional level before trauma) at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  11. Comparison of the overall satisfaction

    To compare the proportion of overall satisfaction (measured on a 7-point Likert scale (Extremely satisfied, Very satisfied, Somewhat satisfied, Mixed, Somewhat dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied, Extremely dissatisfied) of patients at 3 and 12 months between the Accordance and the Discordance groups, between patients whose initial and subsequent treatment decisions adhere to the OF score recommendations and those whose treatment decisions do not completely adhere to the OF score recommendations, between patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fracture treated non-surgically and those treated surgically and between nonsurgical and surgical treatments (as determined by a blinded expert group).

    Time frame: 3 months post-operative and 12-months postoperative

  12. Complications-determination in relation to surgery

    To determine the rate and type of complications in relation to the type of surgery performed

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  13. Complications-determination in relation to OF subtype

    To determine the rate and type of complications in relation to the OF subtype

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  14. Determination of type of treatment

    To determine the type of treatment in relation to the OF subtype

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  15. Determination of rate and type of surgical treatment

    To determine the type of surgical treatment in relation to the OF subtype. The surgery types are: * Kyphoplasty * Vertebroplasty * Any other type of solely vertebral augmentation (stents, etc.), specify * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with screw augmentation * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with screw augmentation and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty * Posterior stabilization (pedicle screws) with vertebral osteotomy (pedicle subtraction osteotomy or similar) * Combined posterior and anterior stabilization, if yes: * Open surgery * Percutaneous/minimal-invasive surgery * Delete "rate" from 10 only keeping type and list them from above

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  16. Proportion between surgery after initial non-surgery treatment

    To determine the proportion of patients who underwent surgery after initial nonsurgical treatment (crossover to surgery).

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  17. Agreement between OF classification and investigators

    To determine the proportion of agreement in the OF classification (from OF 1 to OF 5 categories) made by the site investigators and a blinded expert panel. OF 1: No deformation (vertebral body edema in MRI-STIR) OF 2: Deformation of one endplate without or with only minor posterior wall involvement OF 3: Deformation of one endplate with distinct posterior wall involvement OF 4: Deformation of both endplates with or without posterior wall involvement OF 5: Injuries with anterior or posterior tension band failure

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  18. Validation of AO PROST

    To validate the AO Spine Patient-Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) in terms of interpretability, internal consistency, and responsiveness in patients with symptomatic osteoporotic TL fractures. The AO Spine PROST consists of 19 questions on broad aspects of functioning. Each item has a 0-100 scale, with 0 indicating no function at all and 100 the functional level before trauma. Total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher score indicating better recovery of functional level before trauma.

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

  19. Health economic analyses

    To perform health economic analyses to investigate the cost-effectiveness/cost-utility of a) comparing non-surgical to surgical treatment and b) the effect of adhering to the OF score for treating patients with osteoporotic TL fractures compared with not adhering to the OF score. The cost-effectiveness will be evaluated using the incremental cost effectiveness ratio.

    Time frame: 1 year post-operative

06

Study locations

3 of 15 sites recruiting
  • University of California San Francisco (USCF) Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
    San Francisco, California 94143-0728, United States
    Not yet recruiting
  • Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4216, United States
    Not yet recruiting
  • Sanatorio Güemes
    Buenos Aires, 1240, Argentina
    Not yet recruiting
  • Cajuru University Hospital
    Curitiba, 80050-50, Brazil
    Not yet recruiting
  • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Clinica Alemana de Santiago
    Santiago, 5951, Chile
    Not yet recruiting
  • Orthopaedic Department, Assiut University Hospitals, Faculty of Medicine
    Asyut, 71526, Egypt
    Not yet recruiting
  • Tampere University Hospital
    Tampere, 33521, Finland
    Not yet recruiting
  • Center for Spinal and Scoliosis Surgery, Malteser Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien
    Erlangen, 91054, Germany
    Not yet recruiting
  • PGIMER - Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research
    Chandigarh, 160 012, India
    Not yet recruiting
  • Dokkyo Medical University Hospital
    Tochigi, 321-0293, Japan
    Not yet recruiting
  • Island Hospital Spine Centre
    George Town, 10450, Malaysia
    Recruiting
  • Spiatlul Clinic De Urgenta, "Profesor Doctor Nicolae Oblu"
    Iași, 700309, Romania
    Recruiting
  • Security Force Hospital
    Riyāḑ, 11564, Saudi Arabia
    Recruiting
  • Spital Emmental - Orthopädie Sonnenhof
    Burgdorf, 3400, Switzerland
    Not yet recruiting
  • King's College Hospital
    London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom
    Not yet recruiting
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07027306
Lead sponsor
AO Foundation, AO Spine
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 18, 2025
Start date
Mar 19, 2026
Primary completion
Dec 1, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 1, 2030 (estimated)
Last update
May 13, 2026

Study contacts

Felix Thomas Thomas, PhD
Contact
felix.thomas@aofoundation.org
+41 79 671 47 98
Maria C Medina Giner
Contact
maria.medinaginer@aofoundation.org
0795456120
Klaus Schnake, MD
principal investigator · Center for Spinal and Scoliosis Surgery

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion