椎体成形术与椎体后凸成形术治疗椎体压缩骨折的疗效比较

目的：比较椎体成形术（PVP）与椎体后凸成形术（PKP）治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的疗效。方法：2004年2月～2006年12月采用PVP和PKP治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折63例共72个椎体，其中18例19个椎体行PVP；45例53个椎体行PKP，24例30个椎体行球囊扩张成形术（球囊-PKP）．21例23个椎体行Sky膨胀式椎体成形术（Sky-PKP）。术后采用疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale，VAS）、伤椎前中部高度丢失百分比（％）及后凸畸形Cobb角等指标来评估三组疗效。结果：三组术后VAS评分都有明显下降，与术前相比有显著性差异（P〈0．05），三组VAS降低值没有统计学意义（P〉0．05）。三组后凸畸形及椎体高度与术前比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），PVP组与PKP组在矫形效果上比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05），但Sky-PKP组和球囊-PKP组比较没有统计学意义（P〉0．05）。PVP组3个椎体（15．8％）、球囊-PKP组2个椎体（6．7％）及Sky-PKP组1个椎体（4.3％）出现骨水泥渗漏，但均无神经症状。结论：椎体成形术及椎体后凸成形术都能有效缓解骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者的疼痛，但对于恢复伤椎高度PKP组优于PVP组。     

球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的疗效观察

目的观察球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的临床疗效。方法将2010年4月至2012年11月收治的80例骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者,随机分为实验组（n=40）和对照组（n=40）,实验组采用球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术治疗,对照组采用经皮椎体成形术治疗。结果所有患者术后随访6个月。两组患者术后VAS评分、Cobb＇s角和ODI评分均显著小于术前（P〈0.05）,实验组术后6个月VAS 评分显著小于对照组（P〈0.05）,实验组术后3 d和术后6个月的Cobb＇s角和ODI评分均显著小于对照组（P〈0.05）,实验组骨水泥渗漏率显著低于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折疗效确切,安全性好,可以作为治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的首选方法之一。     

球囊扩张椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松型椎体压缩骨折

目的评价球囊扩张椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松型椎体压缩骨折的临床疗效。方法对29例33个骨质疏松型压缩骨折的椎体,采用球囊扩张椎体成形术进行治疗。测量术前和术后压缩骨折椎体压缩率和后凸角（Cobb角）、VAS评分并进行统计学分析。结果平均随访14.5个月（12～26个月）,压缩骨折椎体压缩率和后凸角（Cobb角）、VAS评分术后均明显改善,术后无不良反应和并发症。结论球囊扩张椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松型椎体压缩骨折是一种安全有效的微创手术方法。     

椎体成形术与椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的效果分析

目的探讨骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折采用椎体成形术与椎体后凸成形术效果对比。方法选取骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者80例随机分为2组,每组40例,PVP组实施经皮椎体成形术,PKP组实施椎体后凸成形术,比较2组治疗效果。结果 2组患者术后活动能力、VAS评分均优于术前,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。术后2组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后PKP组椎体高度恢复优于PVP组(P0.05)。PVP组骨水泥渗漏率高于PKP组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折应用椎体成形术与后凸成形术均可缓解疼痛,促进患者改善生活质量,但椎体后凸成形术伤椎高度恢复效果好,骨水泥渗漏率低。     

经皮椎体成形术与经皮椎体后凸成形术止痛效果比较

目的比较经皮椎体成形术（PVP）与经皮椎体后凸成形术（PKP）治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（OVCF）的止痛效果。方法对24例（30个椎体）OVCF进行PVP治疗;对24例（33个椎体）OVCF进行PKP治疗。结果PVP与PKP组术前与术后各时间点JOh评分比较,差异均有统计学意义,但术后各时间点比较差异无统计学意义。而2组间各时间点JOA评分比较,差异均无统计学意义。结论PVP与PKP治疗OVCF均对止痛及功能障碍的恢复有明确的效果,且二者短期疗效相当。     

椎体后凸成形术和椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折疗效的对比研究

目的探讨椎体后凸成形术（percutaneou8kyphoplasty,PKP）和椎体成形术（percutaneousvertebroplasty,PVP）在治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折中的应用。方法共562例骨质疏松性椎体骨折,采用PVP治疗256例,PKP治疗306例。统计分析手术前后视觉模拟疼痛评分（vAS）、SF-36评分系统、伤椎高度及后凸畸形的X线片测量。结果患者获随访6。12个月,术后症状缓解,无神经损伤,骨水泥渗漏并发症2组比较差异无统计学意义fP〉0．05）。2组手术前后VAS和SF-36评分比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;PKP组术前与术后1周、6个月椎体高度恢复率、椎体后凸角度改善率与PVP组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;PKP组的术后12个月和术后6个月的椎体压缩率、后凸角度比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。结论PVP与PKP均可显著缓解椎体压缩骨折患者的疼痛,PKP矫正椎体高度及改善后凸畸形比PVP好;骨水泥渗漏发生率2组相当。     

老年椎体骨质疏松压缩性骨折椎体成形手术策略及疗效评估研究

目的分析椎体成形手术策略选择（经皮椎体成形术PVP与椎体后凸成形术PKP）治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（OVCF）的临床疗效和安全性。方法对自2009-09--2012—09行PVP治疗的38例（45个椎体）与PKP治疗的42例（45个椎体）骨质疏松椎体压缩骨折的治疗情况进行回顾性分析。结果2组椎体前缘高度保持度PKP组具有明显优势（P〈0．001）,各组术后较术前的临床疗效,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．001）,但2组之间的临床疗效差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。PVP组骨水泥渗漏率显著低于PKP组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论对于老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的椎体成形术手术策略选择上,需按照个体的具体情况进行分析,总体上说PVP组在安全性上要优于PKP组,PVP可作为治疗骨质疏松的首选方法。     

椎体后凸成形术治疗高龄骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折

目的探讨单一球囊扩张经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗80岁以上老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的疗效及安全性。方法回顾分析高龄（80岁及其以上）老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折患者15例,男性3例,女性12例,平均年龄（82.2±1.9）岁。共45个椎体,均为骨质疏松性脊柱压缩骨折,压缩骨折椎体后壁均完整。全部在C型臂X线机引导下行单侧入路、单一球囊椎体后凸成形术。结果患者平均能在术后第2天下床行走,未发现严重手术并发症。椎体前缘、中部及后缘平均高度分别由术前的（2.17±0.82）cm、（1.75±0.66）cm、（2.95±0.43）cm增至术后的（2.40±0.73）cm、（2.11±0.51）cm、（3.00±0.45）cm,椎体前缘、中部高度差异有显著统计学意义（P〈0.01）;术后48 h患者胸腰背痛均有缓解,术前、术后48 hVAS评分比较差异有显著统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论应用椎体后凸成形术治疗高龄骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折,能够安全、有效地改善骨折椎体高度,明显缓解疼痛,早期下床活动。     

椎体后凸成形术中单球囊交替扩张与双球囊同时扩张治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折的疗效对比

目的 对比单球囊交替扩张与双球囊同时扩张椎体后凸成形术（PKP）治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折的临床疗效.方法 54例骨质疏松性椎体骨折患者,按手术方法不同分为单球囊组（30例）和双球囊组（24例）,对比两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、骨水泥注射量及疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Cobb角、椎体高度,评价其疗效.结果 单个椎体手术时间、骨水泥注射量及术中出血量两组比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;手术前后VAS评分、Cobb角及椎体前缘高度、中央高度及后缘高度两组比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）.两组术后VAS评分及Cobb角均较术前明显改善（P〈0.05）;两组术后椎体前缘高度与中央高度均较术前提高（P〈0.05）,但后缘高度并未发生明显的变化（P〉0.05）.结论 单球囊交替扩张与双球囊同时扩张PKP治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折均能够获得较好的疗效,但在患者经济情况允许的情况下,双球囊扩张术应是首选术式.     

骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折椎体成形术后继发骨折原因分析

目的：探讨椎体成形术（percutaneous vertebroplasty,PVP）治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture,OVCF）继发骨折发生原因和防治措施。方法：2011年1月至2013年1月,对采用PVP治疗的180例原发性骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折进行回顾性分析,男75例,女105例;年龄68-95岁,平均（79.50±5.45）岁。依据临床症状和影像学检查,判定责任椎,行椎体成形术共362个椎,术后平均随访12个月。根据再次出现疼痛和核磁或骨扫描检查判定是否继发骨折,分继发骨折和未继发骨折两组,继发骨折组按性别不同分两组,每组分原手术椎再骨折、邻椎骨折和跳跃椎骨折3类。比较各组间年龄、性别、骨水泥注射量、骨水泥泄露、继发骨折部位、继发骨折率和继发骨折类型等情况。结果：男性椎体成形术109椎,女性椎体成形术253椎,术后继发骨折共22例27椎,其中行2次椎体成形术13例16椎,3次椎体成形术2例4椎,保守治疗7例7椎。继发骨折组和未继发骨折组年龄、性别、骨水泥注射量和骨水泥椎间隙泄露与否比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。继发骨折组内男女两组间继发骨折率、继发骨折类型差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,跳跃椎骨折发生率与邻椎骨折发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。继发骨折多发生于术后半年内,而与是否单双侧注射、是否椎间隙泄露无明显关系。结论：椎体压缩骨折椎体成形术后继发骨折与性别和部位无关,术后跳跃椎骨折与邻椎骨折发生率无明显差异,不支持椎体成形术后椎体刚度增加所致邻椎应力增加继而邻椎易骨折这一生物力学观点,认为椎体成形术后继发骨折多发生于术后半年内,是骨质疏松的自然病程。     

Biomechanical evaluation of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with calcium phosphate cement in a simulated osteoporotic compression fracture

 Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) have been used for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. We performed kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with α-tricalcium phosphate cement (CPC) and PMMA to compare the biomechanical properties. Thirty osteoporotic vertebrae were harvested from nine embalmed cadavers. We randomized the vertebrae into four treatment groups: (1) kyphoplasty with CPC; (2) kyphoplasty with PMMA; (3) vertebroplasty with CPC; and (4) vertebroplasty with PMMA. Prior to injecting the cement, all vertebrae were compressed to determine their initial strength and stiffness. They were then recompressed to determine their augmented strength and stiffness. Although the augmented strength was greater than the initial strength in all groups, there was no significant difference between the two bone cements for either kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty. The augmented stiffness was significantly less than the initial stiffness in the kyphoplasty groups, but the difference between the two cements did not reach significance. In the vertebroplasty groups, the augmented stiffness was not significantly different from the initial stiffness. There was no significant difference between the two bone cements for either procedure when cement volume and restoration of anterior height were assessed. We concluded that kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with CPC were viable treatment alternatives to PMMA for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Received: July 18, 2002 / Accepted: November 6, 2002 Offprint requests to: S. Tomita     

Balloon kyphoplasty versus percutaneous vertebroplasty in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: grading the evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of balloon kyphoplasty (KP) compared with percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) and provide recommendations for using these procedures to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).

Methods

A systematic search of all studies published through March 2012 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, ScienceDirect and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials that compared KP to VP and provided data on safety and clinical effects were identified. Demographic characteristics, adverse events and clinical outcomes were manually extracted from all of the selected studies. The evidence quality levels and recommendations were assessed using the GRADE system.

Results

Twelve studies encompassing 1,081 patients met the inclusion criteria. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to the study design. In the RCT subgroup, there were significant differences between the two procedures in short-term visual analog scale (VAS), long-term kyphosis angles, operative times and anterior vertebrae heights. In the cohort study subgroup, there were significant differences between the two procedures in short- and long-term VAS, short- and long-term Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), cement leakage rates, short- and long-term kyphosis angles, operative times and anterior vertebrae heights. However, there were no significant differences in long-term VAS or adjacent vertebral fracture rates in the RCT subgroup. There were no significant differences in short- or long-term VAS, short- or long-term ODI, cement leakage rates, adjacent vertebral fracture rates, short- or long-term kyphosis angles or anterior vertebrae heights in the CCT subgroup, and the adjacent vertebral fracture rates did not differ significantly in the cohort study subgroup. The overall GRADE system evidence quality was very low, which lowers our confidence in their recommendations.

Conclusions

KP and VP are both safe and effective surgical procedures for treating OVCF. KP may be superior to VP in patients with large kyphosis angles, vertebral fissures, fractures in the posterior edge of the vertebral body or significant height loss in the fractured vertebrae. Due to the poor quality of the evidence currently available, high-quality RCTs are required.     

The use of an injectable, biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute for the prophylactic augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae and the management of vertebral compression fractures.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study comparing two materials for augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral bodies and vertebral bodies after compression fracture. OBJECTIVES: To compare an injected, biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute with injected polymethylmethacrylate bone cement for strengthening osteoporotic vertebral bodies and improving the integrity of vertebral compression fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Injection of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement into fractured vertebral bodies has been used clinically. However, there is concern about thermal damage to the neural elements during polymerization of the polymethylmethacrylate bone cement as well as its negative effects on bone remodeling. Biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitutes have been studied for enhancement of fixation in fractured vertebrae. METHODS: Forty fresh osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebrae were used for two separate parts of this study: 1) injection into osteoporotic vertebrae: intact control (n = 8), calcium phosphate (n = 8), and polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (n = 8) groups. Each specimen then was loaded in anterior compression until failure; 2) injection into postfractured vertebrae: calcium phosphate (n = 8) and polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (n = 8) groups. Before and after injection, the specimens were radiographed in the lateral projection to determine changes in vertebral body height and then loaded to failure in anterior bending. RESULTS: For intact osteoporotic vertebrae, the average fracture strength was 527 +/- 43 N (stiffness, 84 +/- 11 N/mm), 1063 +/- 127 N (stiffness, 157 +/- 21 N/mm) for the group injected with calcium phosphate, and 1036 +/- 100 N (stiffness, 156 +/- 8 N/mm) for the group injected with polymethylmethacrylate bone cement. The fracture strength and stiffness in the calcium phosphate bone substitute group and those in the polymethylmethacrylate bone cement group were similar and significantly stronger than those in intact control group (P < 0.05). For the compression fracture study, anterior vertebral height was increased 58.5 +/- 4.6% in the group injected with calcium phosphate and 58.0 +/- 6.5% in the group injected with polymethylmethacrylate bone cement as compared with preinjection fracture heights. No significant difference between the two groups was found in anterior vertebral height, fracture strength, or stiffness. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the injection of a biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute to strengthen osteoporotic vertebral bodies or improve vertebral compression fractures might provide an alternative to the use of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement.     

Open vertebral cement augmentation combined with lumbar decompression for the operative management of thoracolumbar stenosis secondary to osteoporotic burst fractures

Osteoporotic burst fractures with neurologic symptoms are typically treated with neural decompression and multilevel instrumented fusion. These large surgical interventions are challenging because of patients' advanced ages, medical co-morbidities, and poor fixation secondary to osteoporosis. The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to describe a novel technique for the treatment of osteoporotic burst fractures and symptomatic spinal stenosis via a limited thoracolumbar decompression with open cement augmentation [vertebroplasty (VP) or kyphoplasty (KP)]. Indications for decompression and cement augmentation were intractable pain at the level of a known osteoporotic burst fracture with symptoms of spinal stenosis. As such, 25 patients (mean age, 76.1 years) with low-energy, osteoporotic, thoracolumbar burst fractures (7 males, 18 females; 39 fractures) were included. In all cases, laminectomy of the stenotic level(s) was followed by vertebral cement augmentation (9 VP; 16 KP). When a spondylolisthesis at the decompressed level was present, instrumentation was applied across the listhetic level (n = 9). Clinical outcome (1 = poor to 4 = excellent) was assessed on last clinical follow-up (mean, 44.8 wks). In addition, a modified MacNab's grading criteria was used to objectively assess patient outcomes postoperatively. Radiographic analysis of sagittal contour was assessed preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at final follow-up. The average time from onset of symptoms to intervention was 19 weeks (range, 0.3-94 wks). A mean of 1.6 fractures/patient was augmented (range, 1-3 fractures) and 2.8 levels were decompressed (range, 1-6 levels). No statistical difference in anatomic distribution or number of fractures between the VP and KP groups or in the instrumented versus noninstrumented patients was noted (P > 0.05). An overall subjective outcome score of 3.4 was noted. Twenty of 25 patients were graded as excellent/good according to the modified MacNab's criteria. The choice of augmentation procedure or use of instrumentation did not predict outcome (P = 0.08). Overall, 1.7 degrees of sagittal correction was obtained at final follow-up. One patient was noted to have progressive kyphosis after KP. The use of a limited-posterior decompression and open cement augmentation via VP or KP is a safe treatment option for patients who have osteoporotic burst fractures and who are incapacitated from fracture pain and concomitant stenosis. After thoracolumbar decompression, open VP/KP provides direct visualization of the posterior vertebral body wall, allowing for safe cement augmentation of burst fractures, stabilizing the spine, and obviating the need for extensive spinal reconstruction. Although clinically successful, this technique warrants careful patient selection.     

Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures: an evidenced-based review of the literature

BackgroundVertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP) are routinely used to treat vertebral body compression fractures (VCFs) resulting from osteoporosis or vertebral body tumors in order to provide rapid pain relief. However, it remains debated whether VP or KP results in superior outcomes versus medical management alone in patients experiencing VCFs.PurposeTo determine the level of evidence supporting VP or KP for the treatment of VCFs.Study designSystematic review of the literature.Patient samplePatients with osteoporotic or tumor-associated VCFs.Outcome measuresSelf-reported and functional measures.MethodsWe reviewed all articles published between 1980 and 2008 reporting outcomes after VP or KP for osteoporotic or tumor-associated VCFs and rated the level of evidence and grades of recommendation (per North American Spine Society [NASS] guidelines) supporting the use of VP or KP for the treatment of VCFs.ResultsSeventy-four VP studies for osteoporotic VCF (1 level I, 3 level II, 70 level IV), 35 KP studies for osteoporotic VCF (2 level II, 33 level IV), and 18 VP/KP for tumor VCFs (all level IV) were reviewed. There is good evidence (level I) that VP results in superior pain control within the first 2 weeks of intervention compared with optimal medical management for osteoporotic VCFs. There is fair evidence (level II–III) that VP results in less analgesia use, less disability, and greater improvement in general health when compared with optimal medical management within the first 3 months after intervention. There is fair evidence (level II–III) that by 2 years after intervention, VP provides a similar degree of pain control and physical function as optimal medical management. There is fair evidence (level II–III) that KP results in greater improvement in daily activity, physical function, and pain relief when compared with optimal medical management for osteoporotic VCFs by 6 months after intervention. There is poor-quality evidence that VP or KP results in greater pain relief for tumor-associated VCFs.ConclusionsAlthough evidence suggests that physical disability, general health, and pain relief are better with VP and KP than those with medical management within the first 3 months after intervention, high-quality randomized trials with 2-year follow-up are needed to confirm this. Furthermore, the reported incidence of symptomatic procedure-related morbidity for both VP and KP is very low.     

Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: complementary techniques for the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. A prospective non-randomised study on 154 patients

In a prospective study, we aimed to evaluate the potential use of kyphoplasty (KP) and vertebroplasty (VP) as complementary techniques in the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). After 1 month of conservative treatment for VCFs, patients with intractable pain were offered treatment with KP or VP according to a treatment algorithm that considers time from fracture (Δt) and amount of vertebral body collapse. Bone biopsy was obtained intra-operatively to exclude patients affected by malignancy or osteomalacia. 164 patients were included according to the above criteria. Mean age was 67.6 years. Mean follow-up was 33 months. 10 patients (6.1%) were lost to follow-up and 154 reached the minimum 2-year follow-up. 118 (69.5%) underwent VP and 36 (30.5%) underwent KP. Complications affected five patients treated with VP, whose one suffered a transient intercostal neuropathy and four a subsequent VCF (two at adjacent level). Results in terms of visual analogue scale and Oswestry scores were not different among treatment groups. In conclusion, at an average follow-up of almost 3 years from surgical treatment of osteoporotic VCFs, VP and KP show similar good clinical outcomes and appear to be complementary techniques with specific different indications.     

Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: complementary techniques for the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. A prospective non-randomised study on 154 patients

In a prospective study, we aimed to evaluate the potential use of kyphoplasty (KP) and vertebroplasty (VP) as complementary techniques in the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). After 1 month of conservative treatment for VCFs, patients with intractable pain were offered treatment with KP or VP according to a treatment algorithm that considers time from fracture (Δt) and amount of vertebral body collapse. Bone biopsy was obtained intra-operatively to exclude patients affected by malignancy or osteomalacia. 164 patients were included according to the above criteria. Mean age was 67.6 years. Mean follow-up was 33 months. 10 patients (6.1%) were lost to follow-up and 154 reached the minimum 2-year follow-up. 118 (69.5%) underwent VP and 36 (30.5%) underwent KP. Complications affected five patients treated with VP, whose one suffered a transient intercostal neuropathy and four a subsequent VCF (two at adjacent level). Results in terms of visual analogue scale and Oswestry scores were not different among treatment groups. In conclusion, at an average follow-up of almost 3 years from surgical treatment of osteoporotic VCFs, VP and KP show similar good clinical outcomes and appear to be complementary techniques with specific different indications.

     

Minimally Invasive Vertebral Augmentation Techniques in Osteoporotic Fractures

Abstract Minimally invasive vertebral augmentation techniques fill the gap between conservative treatment and open surgical fusion in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Both vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP) have proven to be effective in the reinforcement of a fractured vertebral body and provide pain relief, but both procedures have technical differences. Furthermore, patient selection criteria are still under debate, as no randomized comparison trials of VP and KP exist. A competitive environment has arisen between both methods. In the authors’ opinion, VP and KP do not replace, but complement each other and offer both potential benefits. It is the purpose of this article to outline the different kinds of application of both methods.     

The biomechanics of vertebroplasty. The effect of cement volume on mechanical behavior.

STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo biomechanical study using osteoporotic cadaveric vertebral bodies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the volume of cement injected during percutaneous vertebroplasty and the restoration of strength and stiffness in osteoporotic vertebral bodies, two investigational cements were studied: Orthocomp (Orthovita, Malvern, PA) and Simplex 20 (Simplex P with 20% by weight barium sulfate content; Stryker-Howmedica-Osteonics, Rutherford, NJ). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous biomechanical studies have shown that injections of 8-10 mL of cement during vertebroplasty restore or increase vertebral body strength and stiffness; however, the dose-response association between cement volume and restoration of strength and stiffness is unknown. METHODS: Compression fractures were experimentally created in 144 vertebral bodies (T6-L5) obtained from 12 osteoporotic spines harvested from female cadavers. After initial strength and stiffness were determined, the vertebral bodies were stabilized using bipedicular injections of cement totaling 2, 4, 6, or 8 mL and recompressed, after which post-treatment strength and stiffness were measured. Strength and stiffness were considered restored when post-treatment values were not significantly different from initial values. RESULTS: Strength was restored for all regions when 2 mL of either cement was injected. To restore stiffness with Orthocomp, the thoracic and thoracolumbar regions required 4 mL, but the lumbar region required 6 mL. To restore stiffness with Simplex 20, the thoracic and lumbar regions required 4 mL, but the thoracolumbar region required 8 mL. CONCLUSION: These data provide guidance on the cement volumes needed to restore biomechanical integrity to compressed osteoporotic vertebral bodies.     

An ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of an inflatable bone tamp used in the treatment of compression fracture

STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo biomechanical study using osteoporotic cadaveric vertebral bodies. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the inflatable bone tamp (tamp) restores height to compressed vertebral bodies and to compare the biomechanical properties of isolated, fractured osteoporotic vertebral bodies treated by kyphoplasty (tamp) or vertebroplasty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous biomechanical studies have shown that vertebroplasty increases vertebral body strength and restores vertebral body stiffness, but does not restore vertebral body height lost as a result of compression fracture. METHODS: Compression fractures were experimentally created in 16 osteoporotic VBs assigned to either the tamp or percutaneous vertebroplasty group. The tamp treatment consisted of inserting balloon-like devices into the vertebral body, inflating the bone tamp, and filling the void with Simplex P (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ) bone cement. The percutaneous vertebroplasty treatment consisted of directly injecting Cranioplastic bone cement (CMW, Blackpool, UK) into the vertebral body. Pre- and posttreatment heights were measured, and the repaired vertebral bodies were recompressed to determine posttreatment strength and stiffness values. RESULTS: The tamp treatment resulted in significant restoration (97%) of vertebral body height lost after compression, whereas percutaneous vertebroplasty treatment resulted in a significantly lower restoration of lost height (30%) (P < 0.05). Both treatments resulted in significantly stronger vertebral bodies relative to their initial state (P < 0.05). The tamp treatment restored vertebral body stiffness to initial values, but the percutaneous vertebroplasty treatment did not (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tamp treatment resulted in significantly greater height restoration than did percutaneous vertebroplasty, without loss of vertebral body strength or stiffness.