Safety of vertebral augmentation with cranio-caudal expansion implants in vertebral compression fractures with posterior wall protrusion

被引:6
|
作者
Meyblum, Louis [1 ]
Premat, Kevin [1 ]
Elhorany, Mahmoud [1 ]
Shotar, Eimad [1 ]
Cormier, Evelyne [1 ]
Degos, Vincent [2 ]
Pascal-Mousselard, Hugues [3 ]
Rosenberg, Sylvie [4 ]
Clarencon, Frederic [1 ]
Chiras, Jacques [1 ]
机构
[1] Sorbonne Univ, Pitie Salpetriere Charles Foix Hosp, AP HP, Dept Neuroradiol, F-75013 Paris, France
[2] Sorbonne Univ, Pitie Salpetriere Charles Foix Hosp, AP HP, Dept Anaesthesiol & Crit Care, F-75013 Paris, France
[3] Sorbonne Univ, Pitie Salpetriere Charles Foix Hosp, AP HP, Dept Orthoped Surg, F-75013 Paris, France
[4] Sorbonne Univ, Pitie Salpetriere Charles Foix Hosp, AP HP, Dept Rheumatol, F-75013 Paris, France
关键词
Spinal fractures; Vertebroplasty; Osteoporotic fractures; Back pain; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; HEIGHT RESTORATION; VERTEBROPLASTY; KYPHOPLASTY; COMPLICATIONS; REDUCTION; CLASSIFICATION; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-020-06889-4
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objectives Vertebral augmentation (VA) has become routinely used in vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). VCFs are often associated with posterior wall protrusions (PWPs), which theoretically contraindicates vertebroplasty due to a higher risk of neurological complications. The latest generation of VA devices uses intravertebral cranio-caudal expandable implants to improve the correction of structural deformities but could also be used to prevent further PWP during cement injection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of VA with expandable implant for VCFs with PWP. Methods All consecutive patients treated with expandable implants were considered eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) non-neurological VCF, (2) considered unstable (A3-A4 in AOSpine classification), (3) significant PWP (> 2 mm), (4) back pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS) >= 4. PWPs were independently measured by two investigators; Pearson's statistics were used for interobserver reproducibility. Results Fifty-one consecutive patients, with a mean age of 75 +/- 8.3 years (range, 50-92), were included. There was a slight decrease between mean preoperative (6.7 mm +/- 2.2 mm) and postoperative (6.5 mm +/- 2.2 mm) PWP (p = 0.02), with an excellent interobserver reproducibility (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.92). A mean kyphosis reduction of 34.9% (+/- 28.4) was observed (p < 0.001). Forty-two patients (82.4%) had significant pain improvements (mean preoperative VAS = 6.9 [+/- 1.7] versus 3.1 [+/- 2.0] postoperatively [p < 0.001]). Secondary adjacent level fractures were noted in 16 patients (31.4%), with a reduction of that risk down to 18.8% if a preventive adjacent vertebroplasty was performed, without reaching the significance threshold (p = 0.14). Conclusions VA with expandable implants appeared safe for non-neurological VCFs with PWP, while allowing satisfactory pain relief.
引用
收藏
页码:5641 / 5649
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Vertebral Augmentation for Compression Fractures Caused by Malignant Disease
    Rastogi, Rahul
    Patel, Trusharth
    Swarm, Robert A.
    JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2010, 8 (09): : 1095 - 1102
  • [22] Repeated vertebral augmentation for new vertebral compression fractures of postvertebral augmentation patients: a nationwide cohort study
    Liang, Cheng-Loong
    Wang, Hao-Kwan
    Syu, Fei-Kai
    Wang, Kuo-Wei
    Lu, Kang
    Liliang, Po-Chou
    CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS IN AGING, 2015, 10 : 635 - 642
  • [23] INTRAVERTEBRAL EXPANDABLE IMPLANTS IN THORACOLUMBAR VERTEBRAL COMPRESSION FRACTURES
    Lino Moura, Diogo Filipe
    Gabriel, Josue Pereira
    ACTA ORTOPEDICA BRASILEIRA, 2022, 30 (03):
  • [24] Is Balloon Kyphoplasty Safe and Effective for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures With Posterior Vertebral Body Wall Defects?
    Molloy, Sean
    Sewell, Mathew D.
    Platinum, Johnson
    Patel, Anand
    Selvadurai, Susanne
    Hargunani, Rikin
    Kyriakou, Charalampia
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 113 (07) : 835 - 842
  • [25] Clinical outcomes and safety of the SpineJack vertebral augmentation system for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in a United States patient population
    England, Ryan W.
    Gong, Anna
    Li, Taibo
    Botros, David
    Manupipatpong, Sasicha
    Pang, Sharon
    Hui, Ferdinand
    Khan, Majid
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2021, 89 : 237 - 242
  • [26] The use of vertebral augmentation for vertebral compression fractures in elderly cancer patients: an institutional experience
    Hirsch, A. E.
    Jha, R. M.
    Yoo, A. J.
    Growney, M. L.
    Hirsch, J. A.
    CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY, 2009, 72 : S56 - S56
  • [27] Vertebral Augmentation for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures What is the Current Evidence Pro and Con?
    Gozel, Tarik
    Ortiz, A. Orlando
    RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2024, 62 (06) : 979 - 991
  • [28] Potential underdiagnosis of osteoporosis in repeated vertebral augmentation for new vertebral compression fractures reply
    Liang, Cheng-Loong
    Wang, Hao-Kwan
    Syu, Fei-Kai
    Wang, Kuo-Wei
    Lu, Kang
    Liliang, Po-Chou
    CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS IN AGING, 2015, 10 : 1477 - 1477
  • [29] The role of Vertebral Augmentation Procedures in the management of vertebral compression fractures secondary to multiple myeloma
    Eseonu, Kelechi C. C.
    Panchmatia, Jaykar R. R.
    Streetly, Matthew J. J.
    Grauer, Jonathan N. N.
    Fakouri, Bahram
    HEMATOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 41 (03) : 323 - 334
  • [30] Vesselplasty versus vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with posterior wall rupture
    Xu, Kai
    Li, Ya-Ling
    Xiao, Song-Hua
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 49 (12)