胸腰椎骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折椎体强化术后腰背痛原因的研究进展

<正>在我国人口老龄化进程中,骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCF)患者逐年增多。研究表明,我国40岁以上和50岁以上人群骨质疏松症的总发生率分别为13.2%[1]和18.56%[2],骨质疏松症是老年骨折的高危因素,且脊柱和髋部骨折排前两位[3]。目前临床治疗胸腰椎OVCF的微创手术方法主要包括经皮椎体成形术(PVP)和经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)。据报道,PVP/PKP治疗胸腰椎OVCF疼痛     

骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折椎体成形术后非手术椎体再骨折危险因素探讨

骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折(osteoprosis vertebral compression fracture,OVCF)是老年性及绝经后骨质疏松症患者最常见的严重并发症,骨折患者常有骨性疼痛、椎体高度下降、脊柱后凸畸形等临床表现,严重影响患者生活质量。经皮椎体成形术(percutaneous vertebroplasty,PVP)、经皮椎体后凸成形术(percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP)及网袋加压椎体成形术(vesselplasty)是治疗OVCF的常用术式,在恢复椎体高度、预防后凸畸形、减轻疼痛症状等方面优势突出。但OVCF患者椎体成形术后存在非手术椎体再发骨折的可能性,在影响手术质量的同时,对患者术后康复、生活质量、经济负担均有较大影响。椎体成形术后非手术椎体再发骨折与骨质疏松进程、初始骨折部位及数量等自身客观因素相关,也与术后椎体高度的过度恢复、骨水泥渗漏、骨水泥过度填充等手术因素密切相关。本文通过查阅近年来关于OVCF患者椎体成形术后非手术椎体再发骨折危险因素及原因文献报道,综述经过统计学方法验证的,具有统计学意义的危险因素,通过患者自身因素、手术因素等方面展开探讨,以期能够为临床降低OVCF患者椎体成形术后再发骨折的发生率提供相关参考。     

经皮椎体成形术治疗胸腰椎骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折后凸畸形

目的 探讨经皮椎体成形术(PVP)治疗伴有后凸畸形的胸腰椎骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCF)的临床疗效,并与经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)比较其对后凸畸形的矫正作用.方法 回顾性分析2018年7月—2020年7月上海交通大学医学院附属新华医院采用PVP治疗的100例OVCF患者及采用PKP治疗的90例OVCF患者临床资...     

两种术式治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折的疗效比较

目的探讨椎体成形术(PVP)和椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCF)的临床疗效。方法将112例OVCF患者根据入院先后顺序分成PVP单侧穿刺组(32例)、PVP双侧穿刺组(28例)、PKP单侧穿刺组(27例)、PKP双侧穿刺组(25例)。比较4组间手术时间、骨水泥渗漏率、椎体前缘高度比、住院天数、手术前后疼痛VAS评分。结果 112例患者均获得随访,时间6～13个月。手术时间:PVP单侧穿刺组与双侧穿刺组比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05),PKP单侧穿刺组与双侧穿刺组比较差异有统计学意义(P 0. 01),且PVP两组与PKP两组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P 0. 01)。骨水泥渗漏率、椎体前缘高度比:PVP两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05),PKP两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0. 05),但PVP两组与PKP两组间比较差异有统计学意义(P 0. 01)。住院天数、手术前后VAS评分4组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论 OVCF采用PVP与PKP治疗疗效均满意。PVP手术时间短、费用低,但骨水泥渗漏率偏高,不能恢复压缩椎体高度; PKP骨水泥渗漏率低,利于恢复压缩椎体高度,但手术时间长、费用高。     

老年胸腰椎压缩骨折椎体成形术后继发邻近椎体骨折的研究进展

自Galiebert[1]1987年将经皮椎体成形术(PVP)成功应用于椎体血管瘤的治疗后,PVP及经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)被广泛应用于骨质疏松椎体压缩骨折(osteoporotic vertebral compression frecture,OVCF),因其能安全高效缓解骨折椎体疼痛而被越来越多的外科医生所采用。然而,伴随着手术而出现新发椎体压缩性骨折(new vertebral     

骨质疏松性椎体骨折外科治疗进展

骨质疏松性椎体骨折是临床治疗的难点。骨质疏松性椎体骨折的治疗目的是缓解疼痛,改善生活质量;增加骨强度,避免椎体继续压缩;矫形,恢复椎体高度。传统的保守疗法效果往往不甚理想。外科微创治疗技术如经皮椎体成形术(PVP)、经皮球囊扩张椎体成形术(PKP)和经皮自体骨移植(PBG)等的应用,已取得较好疗效。该文就PVP、PKP和PBG近期相关研究进展作一简要综述。     

椎体成形与椎体后凸成形术后邻近椎体再发骨折危险因素的研究进展CSCD

经皮椎体成形术（ percutaneous vertebroplasty, PVP）和经皮椎体后凸成形术（ percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP）是治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折（ osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, OVCF）的有效微创手术方式。随着手术的广泛应用,PVP和PKP术后椎体再次骨折的问题越来越受到临床工作者的关注。本文就PVP或PKP术后邻近椎体再发骨折的危险因素进行综述。     

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。     

改良经皮椎体成形术在骨质疏松椎体压缩性骨折中的应用

目的 通过比较改良经皮椎体成形术(PVP)、PVR经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)治疗老年骨质疏松椎体压缩性骨折(OVCF)的疗效,探讨改良PVP在临床应用中的优势. 方法 对2007年6月至2010年7月收治并获得随访的97例老年OVCF患者临床资料进行回顾性分析,男36例,女61例;年龄56～89岁,平均68.3岁;总计124个椎体,单个椎体骨折74例,2个椎体骨折19例,3个椎体骨折4例;胸椎73个,腰椎51个.根据手术方法不同分为PVP组(26例)、PKP组(39例)和改良PVP组(32例).对比3组患者术前、术后1周、术后6个月的视觉疼痛模拟评分(VAS)和伤椎cobb角的恢复情况及术后骨水泥渗漏情况. 结果 所有患者术后获7 ～20个月(平均13个月)随访,其中3例出现神经根症状,但表现不明显.无脊髓损伤、感染及血管栓塞等并发症发生.3组患者术后1周、术后6个月的VAS评分分别与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05),3组患者同一时间点VAS评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).PKP组和改良PVP组患者术后1周、术后6个月的cobb角分别与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).改良PVP组和PKP组的cobb角恢复优于PVP组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).改良PVP组、PKP组的骨水泥渗漏率远低于PVP组,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 改良PVP能迅速缓解OVCF患者疼痛,与传统PVP相比,在纠正椎体后凸角度和降低骨水泥渗漏方面明显改善.临床疗效与PKP相当,但费用远较PKP低.     

两种椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折疗效比较

目的比较经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)和经皮椎体成形术(PVP)治疗骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCF)的疗效。方法将68例OVCF患者随机分成PVP组和PKP组,各34例。比较两组伤椎Cobb角、楔形指数以及疼痛VAS评分、ODI。结果患者均获得随访,时间13～28个月。VAS评分、ODI两组术后较术前均显著降低(P 0. 05),两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05); PVP组伤椎Cobb角、楔形指数术后与术前比较差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05);术后伤椎Cobb角、楔形指数PKP组显著小(高)于PVP组(P 0. 05)。结论 PVP和PKP是OVCF功能恢复和疼痛缓解的有效治疗方法,虽然PKP的影像学结果更好,但与临床疗效并无关系。     

Mild morphometric vertebral fractures predict vertebral fractures but not non-vertebral fractures

Summary

In this meta-analysis of the control arms of four phase 3 trials, mild vertebral fractures were a significant risk factor for future vertebral fractures but not for non-vertebral fracture.

Introduction

A prior vertebral fracture is a risk factor for future fracture that is commonly used as an eligibility criterion for treatment and in the assessment of fracture probability. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of a morphometric fracture according to the severity of fracture.

Methods

We examined the control (placebo) treated arms of four phase 3 trials. Vertebral fracture status was graded at baseline in 7,623 women, and fracture outcomes were documented over the subsequent 20,000 patient-years. Fracture outcomes were characterised as a further vertebral fracture, a non-vertebral fracture or a clinical fracture (non-vertebral plus clinical vertebral fracture). The relative risk of fracture was computed from the merged β coefficients of each trial weighted according to the variance.

Results

Mild vertebral fractures were a significant risk factor for vertebral fractures [risk ratio (RR)?=?2.17; 95 % CI?=?1.70–2.76] but were not associated with an increased risk of non-vertebral fractures (RR?=?1.08; 95 % CI?=?0.86–1.36). Moderate/severe vertebral fractures were associated with a high risk of vertebral fractures (RR?=?4.23; 95 % CI?=?3.58–5.00) and a moderate though significant increase in non-vertebral fracture risk (RR?=?1.64; 95 % CI?=?1.38–1.94).

Conclusions

Prior moderate/severe morphometric vertebral fractures are a strong and significant risk factor for future fracture. The presence of a mild vertebral fracture is of no significant prognostic value for non-vertebral fractures. These findings should temper the use of morphometric fractures in the assessment of risk and the design of phase 3 studies.     

Classification of vertebral fractures

Although it is a cardinal feature of involutional osteoporosis, there is often disagreement on what constitutes a vertebral fracture. We measured vertebrae T4-L5 in 52 healthy women to develop a normal range (mean +/- 3 SD) for vertebral shape and used these data to assess the prevalence of vertebral fractures. We classified vertebral fractures by type of deformity (wedge, biconcavity, or compression) and further by the degree of deformity (grades 1 and 2). In 195 postmenopausal women who were an age-stratified random sample of the Rochester population (ages 47-94), 40 (21%) had vertebral fractures (mean, 2 per person). There was a similar number of compression and wedge fractures, and grade 2 fractures were as common as grade 1. In a referral sample of 74 women with suspected osteoporosis, 62 (84%) had vertebral fractures (mean, 3.3 per person). Wedge fractures were most common, and grade 2 fractures were more common than grade 1. The distribution of type and grade of fractures differed between the two patient groups (P less than 0.01). Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine was related to mean fracture grade (r = -0.33, P less than 0.05) and to fracture number (r = -0.57, P less than 0.001) but not to fracture type. We conclude that a comprehensive approach is required in describing vertebral fractures. Using this approach we found distortion in the fracture characteristics of women referred to an osteoporosis clinic compared to women in the community.     

Detection of vertebral fractures

Despite the importance of vertebral compression fractures, there is much that remains uncertain. There is no “gold standard“ for the definition which has led to epidemiologic and study differences. Height loss is a way to suspect vertebral fractures but it has its own issues. There are multiple radiographic systems for defining vertebral fractures, both prevalent and incident; risk factors for prevalent fractures have already been delineated. Recent studies have elucidated the risk factors for incident vertebral fractures including age, low weight, late menarche, lower bone mineral density, history of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, smoking, and use of a walking aid. Fan beam densitometers have had improving ability to image the spine, a procedure now known as vertebral fracture assessment (VFA). Recently (in the United States) a CPT code and reimbursement was established. Yet, many vertebral fractures go undiagnosed, diagnosed but unreported, or reported but not utilized in patient care. Because of this, the International Osteoporosis Foundation developed a Vertebral Fracture Initiative for radiologists and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry began a VFA course. Both teaching programs use the semi-quantitative assessment of Genant to aid the radiologists and clinicians in detecting vertebral fractures.     

骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折PVP术后相邻椎体骨折的相关因素分析

目的:探讨骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCFs)患者行经皮椎体成形术(PVP)后相邻椎体骨折的相关因素。方法:对2004年3月～2008年6月112例行单节段PVP治疗的OVCFs患者进行回顾性分析。记录患者的年龄、性别、病程、有无外伤、术前椎体压缩程度、骨密度、手术入路(单侧或双侧)、麻醉方式、有无侧凸畸形、骨水泥剂量、骨水泥渗漏至椎间盘等情况。应用单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析研究各因素与PVP术后发生相邻椎体骨折的关系。结果:112例患者中有21例患者术后发生相邻椎体骨折共23个椎体,发生率为18.8%。单因素分析结果显示患者术前椎体压缩程度、骨密度、骨水泥剂量、骨水泥渗漏至椎间盘与术后发生相邻椎体骨折有显著相关性(P0.05),而患者年龄、性别、病程、有无外伤、手术入路、麻醉方式、有无侧凸畸形与术后相邻椎体骨折无显著相关性(P0.05)。多因素分析结果显示患者术前椎体压缩程度较重、骨水泥注射量较大及骨水泥渗漏至椎间盘与术后发生相邻椎体骨折相关(P0.05)。结论:OVCFs患者PVP术后相邻椎体骨折可能与术前椎体压缩程度、骨水泥渗漏至椎间盘、骨水泥注射量等因素相关。     

骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折PVP术后非手术椎体骨折的相关因素分析

【摘要】　目的：探讨骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（OVCFs）经皮椎体成形术（PVP）后非手术椎体骨折的相关因素。方法：2007年1月～2010年3月门诊和病房共收治OVCFs PVP术后非手术椎体骨折患者42例,男8例,女34例,年龄55～82岁,平均67.3岁,均行脊柱X线片及MRI检查,确诊为相邻或非相邻椎体骨折;选取同期随访的PVP术后非手术椎体无骨折患者68例,男17例,女51例,年龄52～75岁,平均60.1岁。应用双能X线吸收法测定腰椎（L2～L4）骨密度值,并记录患者年龄、性别、体重指数、术前是否长期（超过1年）服用糖皮质激素类药物、手术部位（胸椎或腰椎）及单双侧入路等情况,分析引起非手术椎体骨折的相关因素。结果：单因素分析显示两组患者在年龄、骨密度及是否长期服用糖皮质激素方面比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,在性别、体重指数、手术部位及入路方面比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。多因素分析显示高龄、骨密度T值≤-2.5SD及长期服用糖皮质激素是导致PVP术后非手术椎体骨折的危险因素,其OR值分别为3.775、5.980、3.401（P＜0.05）。结论：高龄、骨质疏松及服用糖皮质激素药物超过1年是导致OVCFs患者PVP术后非手术椎体骨折的相关因素。     

骨质疏松椎体压缩性骨折PKP术后椎体再骨折的临床研究

目的 探讨骨质疏松脊柱压缩性骨折（osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture,OVCFs）行经皮椎体后凸成形术（percutaneous kyphoplasty,PKP）后再骨折的相关因素。 方法 回顾性分析了2014年1月—2015年12月行经皮椎体后凸成形术治疗骨质疏松脊柱压缩性骨折患者133例（174个椎体）。根据有无椎体新发骨折,分为再骨折组与对照组。随访时间12-18个月,平均15.5个月,统计并分析了患者性别、年龄、身高、体重、体质指数、骨密度、受伤椎体个数、骨水泥用量、注入骨水泥的方式、骨水泥是否椎间盘渗透、是否再次骨折、术后伤椎前缘恢比率及术后Cobb恢复比率等因素,并对上述因素进行统计学分析。 结果 术后再发骨折患者有28例,发生率为21%。再骨折组与对照组比较,年龄、术前骨密度、骨水泥向椎间盘渗漏、术后Cobb角度纠正程度及椎体前缘高度恢复程度在单因素分析中差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析示术前骨密度与再骨折有显著相关性（P＜0.05）。 结论 术前骨密度、年龄、骨水泥向椎间盘渗漏、椎体高度的恢复比率及Cobb角的纠正比率是PKP术后出现其临近椎体再骨折的相关因素,但术前骨密度是其独立危险因素。     

An insight into vertebral fractures

European Spine Journal -