Transpedicular vertebroplasty after intravertebral cavity formation versus conservative treatment for osteoporotic burst fractures

• Published in: The spine journal Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 39 - 48
• Main Authors: Nakano, Masato, PhD, MD, Kawaguchi, Yoshiharu, PhD, MD, Kimura, Tomoatsu, PhD, MD, Hirano, Norikazu, PhD, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 2014
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Cements; Burst fracture; Calcium phosphate cement; Case-Control Studies; Female; Fractures, Compression - surgery; Fractures, Compression - therapy; Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae - injuries; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Male; Middle Aged; Orthopedics; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures - surgery; Osteoporotic Fractures - therapy; Spinal Fractures - surgery; Spinal Fractures - therapy; Thoracic Vertebrae - injuries; Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery; Treatment Outcome; Vertebral fracture; Vertebroplasty; Vertebroplasty - methods; Vertebral fracture; Burst fracture; Osteoporosis; Calcium phosphate cement; Vertebroplasty
• ISSN: 1529-9430; 1878-1632
• DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.016

Abstract Background context There has been no study regarding the comparison between vertebroplasty and conservative treatment for osteoporotic burst fracture. Purpose To compare the results of vertebroplasty after intravertebral cavity formation with that of conservative treatment alone. Study design A case-control study. Methods The vertebroplasty group included 40 consecutive patients with primary osteoporotic burst fracture who underwent vertebroplasty using calcium phosphate cement, and the control group was made up of 40 patients given conservative treatment alone who were matched for age, gender, the injury level, and the type of fracture. Two groups of patients who had no neural deficit were prospectively examined. Clinical and radiological outcomes of these two groups were compared blindly. The authors do not report any conflict of interest in this study. Outcome measures Outcome measures included visual analog scale (VAS) of the back pain, analgesic requirements, and mobility; in a lateral radiograph, the deformity index was measured and expressed as the ratio of the vertebral body (VB) height (sum of measurements at anterior, middle, and posterior regions of VB) to the longitudinal diameter of VB. Anteroposterior height comparison was expressed as the percentage of VB height at the anterior region compared with the height at the posterior region. Each recovery rate was calculated as a percentage by the formula: (value at the examination−value before treatment)/value before treatment×100. Results The duration of follow-up was more than 12 months (mean; 22.5 months). The mean VAS at 12 months after injury was 2.17 cm in the conservative group and 0.61 cm in the vertebroplasty group (p=.0002). The mean duration of analgesic medication required was 157.2 days in the conservative group and 21.3 days in the vertebroplasty group (p=.0048). The mean deformity index at 12 months after injury was 1.66 in the vertebroplasty group and 1.38 in the control group, and the mean recovery rate was +7.3% and −18.4%, respectively (p<.0001). Anteroposterior height comparison at 12 months after injury was 49.1% in the conservative group and 71.2% in the vertebroplasty group, and the mean recovery rate was −26.4% and +30.1%, respectively (p<.0001). One fracture in the vertebroplasty group showed delayed union until 6 months after injury. In the control group, there were six delayed union including four pseudoarthroses at over 6 months after injury that caused leg pain and were treated by conservative therapy. Conclusions We conclude that vertebroplasty after intravertebral cavity formation provided a better clinical and radiological result than conservative treatment for osteoporotic burst fracture.