Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The variability of vertebral body volume and pain associated with osteoporotic vertebral fractures: conservative treatment versus percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) can lead to late collapse which often causes kyphotic spinal deformity, persistent back pain, decreased lung capacity, increased fracture risk and increased mortality. The purpose of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of vertebroplasty against conservative management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures without neurologic symptoms.

Material and methods

A total of 66 patients with recent OVF on MRI examination were included in the study. All patients were admitted from September 2009 to September 2012. The cohort was divided into two groups. The first study group consisted of 33 prospectively followed consecutive patients who suffered 40 vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty (group 1), and the control group consisted of 33 patients who suffered 41 vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated conservatively because they refused vertebroplasty (group 2). The data collection has been conducted in a prospective registration manner. The inclusion criteria consisted of painful OVF matched with imagistic findings. We assessed the results of pain relief and minimal sagittal area of the vertebral body on the axial CT scan at presentation, after the intervention, at six and 12 months after initial presentation.

Results

Vertebroplasty with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) was performed in 30 patients on 39 VBs, including four thoracic vertebras, 27 vertebras of the thoracolumbar jonction and eight lumbar vertebras. Group 2 included 30 patients with 39 OVFs (four thoracic vertebras, 23 vertebras of the thoracolumbar junction and 11 lumbar vertebras). There was no significant difference in VAS scores before treatment (p = 0.229). The mean VAS was 5.90 in Group 1 and 6.28 in Group 2 before the treatment. Mean VAS after vertebroplasty was 0.85 in Group 1. The mean VAS at six months was 0.92 in Group 1 and 3.00 in Group 2 (p < 0.05). The mean VAS at 12 months was 0.92 in Group 1 and 2.36 in Group 2. The mean improvement rate in VAS scores was 84.40% and 62.42%, respectively (p < 0.05). For Group 1, mean area of the VBs measured on sagital CT images was 8.288 at the initial presentation, 8.554 postoperatively, 8.541 at five months and 8.508 at 12 months, respectively, and 8.388 at the initial presentation, 7.976 at six months and 7.585 at 12 months for Group 2 (Fig. 4).

Discussions

Although conservative treatment is fundamental and achieves good symptom control, in patients who suffer osteoporotic compression fractures (OCF), the incidence of late collapse is high and the prognosis is poor. In order to relieve the pain and avoid VB collapse, vertebroplasty is the recommended treatment in OCFs. Considering the above findings, the dilemma is whether vertebroplasty can change the natural history (pain and deformity) of OCFs.

Conclusion

In our study on OVF, vertebroplasty delivered superior clinical and radiological outcomes over the first year from intervention when compared to conservative treatment of patients with osteoporotic compression fractures without neurological deficit.

We believe that the possibility of evolution towards progressive kyphosis is sufficient to justify prophylactic and therapeutic intervention such as vertebroplasty, a minor gesture compared with extensive correction surgery and stabilization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexandru D, So W (2012) Evaluation and management of vertebral compression fractures. Perm J 16(4):46–51

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bleibler F, Konnopka A, Benzinger P, Rapp K, König HH (2013) The health burden and costs of incident fractures attributable to osteoporosis from 2010 to 2050 in Germany-a demographic simulation model. Osteoporos Int 24(3):835–847

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Poenaru DV, Prejbeanu R, Iulian P, Haragus H, Popovici E, Golet I, Vermesan D (2014) Epidemiology of osteoporotic hip fractures in Western Romania. Int Orthop 38(11):2329–2334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, Scott JC, Black D (2000) Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 11(7):556–561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nevitt MC, Ettinger B, Black DM, Stone K, Jamal SA, Ensrud K, Segal M, Genant HK, Cummings SR (1998) The association of radiographically detected vertebral fractures with back pain and function: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 128(10):793–800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD (1991) Pre-existing fractures and bone mass predict vertebral fracture incidence in women. Ann Intern Med 114(11):919–923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lapras C, Mottolese C, Deruty R, Lapras C Jr, Remond J, Duquesnel J (1989) Percutaneous injection of methyl-methacrylate in osteoporosis and severe vertebral osteolysis (Galibert’s technic). Ann Chir 43:371–376, in French

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Deramond H, Depriester C, Galibert P, Le Gars D (1998) Percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate. Technique, indications, and results. Radiol Clin North Am 36(3):533–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen ME, Evans AJ, Mathis JM, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Dion JE (1997) Percutaneous polymethylmethacrylatevertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: technical aspects. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 18(10):1897–1904

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Duan Y, Seeman E, Turner CH (2001) The biomechanical basis of vertebral body fragility in men and women. J Bone Miner Res 16(12):2276–2283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Myers ER, Wilson SE (1997) Biomechanics of osteoporosis and vertebral fracture. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(24 Suppl):25S–31S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2(7889):1127–1131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quaile A (2016) Spinal edition editorial. Int Orthop 40:1063–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung HJ, Chung KJ, Yoon HS, Kwon IH (2008) Comparative study of balloon kyphoplasty with unilateral versus bilateral approach in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Int Orthop 32(6):817–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C, Graves S, Staples MP, Murphy B (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361:557–568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, Edwards R, Gray LA, Stout L, Owen S, Hollingworth W, Ghdoke B, Annesley-Williams DJ, Ralston SH, Jarvik JG (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pereira J, Winstein KJ (2009) Spine surgery found no better than placebo. Wall Street J. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203674704574332771250497610.html. Accessed July 12, 2010

  18. CBS News (2009) Unnecessary procedures.http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5218107n&tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.7. Accessed July 12, 2010

  19. Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. International Osteoporosis Foundation (2005) Quality of Life Scoring Algorithm Qualeffo-41. http://www.iofbonehealth.org/sites/default/files/media/PDFs/Quality%20of%20Life%20Questionnaires/IOF-Qualeffo41-questionnaire-scoring_algorithm_0_0.pdf. Accessed September 2nd, 2015

  21. Aebi M (2009) Vertebroplasty: about sense and nonsense of uncontrolled “controlled randomized prospective trials”. Eur Spine J 18:1247–1248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson DJ, Owen S, Corkill RA (2011) Facet joint injections as a means of reducing the need for vertebroplasty in insufficiency fractures of the spine. Eur Radiol 21:1772–1778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kanayama M, Oha F, Iwata A, Hashimoto T (2015) Does balloon kyphoplasty improve the global spinal alignment in osteoporotic vertebral fracture? Int Orthop 39(6):1137–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Katsumi K, Hirano T, Watanabe K, Ohashi M, Yamazaki A, Ito T, Endo N (2016) Surgical treatment for osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral collapse using vertebroplasty with posterior spinal fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Int Orthop 18:1–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara by the grant PII-C3-TC-2015-15132-01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iulian Popa.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrei, D., Popa, I., Brad, S. et al. The variability of vertebral body volume and pain associated with osteoporotic vertebral fractures: conservative treatment versus percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 963–968 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3409-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3409-2

Keywords

Navigation