Spine Radiology
ARTICLE 26
Spine Radiology · Trauma

Acute vs Chronic Compression Fracture

Edema, DWI and morphology

Section · Trauma Updated · March 2026 Read · ~4 min

Acute vs Chronic Compression Fracture

Overview

Distinguishing an acute vertebral compression fracture from a chronic (healed) fracture is a common and important clinical question, particularly in elderly patients with multiple compression deformities. The distinction affects management — acute fractures require pain management, monitoring, and potentially vertebral augmentation, while chronic fractures are incidental findings that do not require acute treatment. MRI is the most reliable imaging modality for making this distinction.

MRI Features

Acute Compression Fracture

Chronic Compression Fracture

Subacute Compression Fracture

In the subacute phase (weeks to months), there may be partial resolution of edema with a mixed signal pattern — some residual STIR hyperintensity along with areas of normalizing fatty marrow signal. This intermediate stage makes precise dating of the fracture difficult.

CT Features

CT is less reliable than MRI for determining fracture acuity but may provide clues:

Distinguishing Benign from Malignant Compression Fractures

This distinction is equally important and frequently arises in the same clinical context:

Feature Benign (Osteoporotic) Malignant (Pathological)
Posterior body contour Retropulsion (angular fragment) Convex (bulging)
Pedicle signal Normal Abnormal (involved)
Epidural mass Absent May be present
Marrow edema pattern Band-like (along endplate) Diffuse (entire body)
Other vertebral bodies Normal or with similar fractures May show focal lesions
Enhancement pattern Band-like Heterogeneous, entire body
DWI Variable Restricted diffusion
Paravertebral mass Absent May be present

Clinical Pearl

The single most reliable MRI feature for distinguishing acute from chronic compression fractures is STIR signal: bright = acute (edema present), dark = chronic (no edema). For distinguishing benign from malignant fractures, pedicle involvement and a convex posterior vertebral body contour are the most specific findings for malignancy.

Key Points

References

  1. Mauch JT, Carr CM, Cloft H, Diehn FE. Review of the imaging features of benign osteoporotic and malignant vertebral compression fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(9):1584-1592. PMID: 29348133.
  2. Jung HS, Jee WH, McCauley TR, Ha KY, Choi KH. Discrimination of metastatic from acute osteoporotic compression spinal fractures with MR imaging. RadioGraphics. 2003;23(1):179-187. PMID: 12533652.
  3. Baur A, Stäbler A, Arbogast S, Duerr HR, Bartl R, Reiser M. Acute osteoporotic and neoplastic vertebral compression fractures: fluid sign at MR imaging. Radiology. 2002;225(3):730-735. PMID: 12461253.
  4. Baker LL, Goodman SB, Perkash I, Lane B, Enzmann DR. Benign versus pathologic compression fractures of vertebral bodies: assessment with conventional spin-echo, chemical-shift, and STIR MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;174(2):495-502. PMID: 2296658.
  5. Maldague BE, Noel HM, Malghem JJ. The intravertebral vacuum cleft: a sign of ischemic vertebral collapse. Radiology. 1978;129(1):23-29. PMID: 693884.
  6. Romeo V, Ugga L, Stanzione A, Cocozza S, Cuocolo R, Brunetti A. Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures using conventional and advanced MRI techniques. BJR Open. 2019;1(1):20180033. PMID: 33178924.
  7. Radiopaedia. Kümmell disease. Available at: https://radiopaedia.org/articles/kummell-disease-1