Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of romosozumab, a bone anabolic agent, versus vertebroplasty, a conventional surgical intervention, in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Methods: A retrospective analysis included 86 thoracic/lumbar compression fracture patients from 2014 to 2022 at a medical center. Forty-two patients received romosozumab (monthly injections for 1 year) followed by 1 year of denosumab, while 44 underwent vertebroplasty followed by denosumab injections biannually for 2 years. Outcomes were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, bone mineral density (BMD), vertebral compression ratio, and Cobb angle over 12 months. Results: At 12 months, the romosozumab group showed a greater reduction in NRS scores (4.90 ± 1.01 vs. 4.27 ± 1.34, p = 0.015) and a higher increase in lumbar BMD (0.8 ± 0.5 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = 0.000) compared to the vertebroplasty group. There were no significant differences in changes in hip total BMD and femur neck BMD (p = 0.190, p = 0.167, respectively). Radiographic assessments showed no significant differences in vertebral compression ratio (14.7% vs. 14.8%; p = 0.960) or Cobb angle (4.2° vs. 4.9°; p = 0.302). The incidence of major osteoporotic fractures was lower in the romosozumab group (7.1% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.051), with similar rates of cardiovascular events in both groups (4.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.716). Conclusion Romosozumab has demonstrated superior pain reduction and lumbar BMD improvement compared to vertebroplasty at 12 months, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes or adverse events, suggesting it as an alternative to vertebroplasty for OVCF.