Abstract
Background
VAPOUR found vertebroplasty (V) more effective than placebo (P) in patients with severe pain and fracture duration less than 6 weeks. Exploratory analysis suggested that benefits were concentrated in the subgroup of patients with fractures ≤ 3-week duration. This difference may account for the three negative blinded trials that included few patients within this fracture time frame.
Purpose
To assess the safety and efficacy of early vertebroplasty for acute painful vertebral osteoporotic fractures within 3 weeks of fracture onset in the VAPOUR study.
Methods
Spearman’s rank log coefficients were calculated to reassess the relationship of pain reduction from vertebroplasty and fracture duration in the VAPOUR trial. We more fully report baseline and outcome data in patients with fractures ≤ 3-week duration.
Results
There were 46V and 47P patients with fractures ≤ 3-week duration. Baseline characteristics were similar. In total, 86 patients (41V, 45P) completed the 14-day questionnaire. The proportion of patients with reduction in pain from severe (NRS ≥ 7/10 was an inclusion requirement) to mild (NRS < 4) at 14 days was 21 (51%) V-group and 9 (20%) in the P-group (between-group difference 31 percentage points, 95% CI 12–50; p = 0.002). Early vertebroplasty provided greater reductions in mean NRS pain and Roland–Morris Disability.
Conclusion
Analysis of this patient subgroup from the VAPOUR trial, in the context of other randomised trial evidence, suggests clinically significant benefits from early vertebroplasty if performed within 3 weeks of fracture.
Graphic abstract
These slides can be retrieved from Electronic Supplementary Material.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): a multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 388:1408–1416
Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–579
Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361:557–568. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0900429pmid:19657121
Firanescu CE, de Vries J, Lodder P et al (2018) Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): randomised sham controlled clinical trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1551
ClinicalTrials.gov (2000) Identifier: NCT01482793. A controlled trial of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures. National Library of Medicine (US), Bethesda. About 4 screens. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01482793?cond=vertebroplasty&draw=4&rank=21. (Cited 31 Aug 2019)
Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124
Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kujik C, Nevitt MC (1993) Vertebral fracture assessment using a semi-quantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res 8:1137–1148
Hasserius R, Karlsson MK, Jonsson B, Redlund-Johnell I, Johnell O (2005) Long term morbidity and mortality after a clinically diagnosed vertebral fracture in the elderly—a 12 and 22 year follow up of 257 patients. Calcif Tissue Int 76(4):235–242
Ong T, Kantachuvesiri P, Sahota O, Gladman JRF (2018) Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with vertebral fragility fractures: a systematic review. Age Ageing 47:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx079
Ong T, Sahota O, Gladman JRF (2019) The Nottingham Spinal Health (NoSH) Study: a cohort of patients hospitalised with vertebral fragility fractures. Osteoporos Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05198x
Diamond TH, Champion B, Clark WA (2003) Management of acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a nonrandomized trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with conservative therapy. Am J Med 114:257–265
Diamond TH, Clark WA, Kumar SV (2007) Histomorphometric analysis of fracture healing cascade in acute osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. Bone 40(3):775–780
Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA et al (2000) Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 88:287–294
Buchbinder R, Johnston RV, Rischin KJ et al (2018) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Datab Syst Rev 11:CD006349. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006349.pub4
Hansen EJ, Simony A, Rousing R, Carreon LY, Tropp H, Andersen MO (2016) Double blind placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous vertebroplasty (VOPE). Glob Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1582763
Yang EZ, Xu JG, Huang GZ et al (2016) Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in aged patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine 41:653–656
Rousing R, Hansen KL, Andersen MO, Jespersen SM, Thomsen K, Lauritsen JM (2010) Twelve-months follow-up in forty-nine patients with acute/semiacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures treated conservatively or with percutaneous vertebroplasty: a clinical randomized study. Spine 35:478–482
Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E (2015) Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res 10:24
Lambert RGW, Golmohammadi K, Majumdar SR et al (2007) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD006349
Clark W, Bird P, Diamond T et al (2019) The Cochrane vertebroplasty review misrepresented evidence for vertebroplasty with early intervention in severely affected patients. BMJ Evid Based Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111171
Ebeling PR, Akesson K, Bauer DC et al (2019) The efficacy and safety of vertebral augmentation: a second ASBMR Task Force Report. J Bone Miner Res 34(1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3653
Diamond T, Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P (2019) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures—benefits shown in VAPOUR trial masked when pooled with other clinical trials. Diamond 34:1182–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3725
Chandra RV, Maingard J, Asadi H et al (2018) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures: what are the latest data? Am J Neuroradiol 39:798–806. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5458
Lou S, Shi X, Zhang X, Lyu H et al (2019) Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus non-operative treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05101-8
Staples MP, Kallmes DF, Comstock BA et al (2011) Effectiveness of vertebroplasty using individual patient data from two randomised placebo controlled trials: meta-analysis. BMJ 342:d3952
Ong KL, Beall DP, Frohberg M, Lau E, Hirsch JA (2018) Were VCF patients at higher risk of mortality following the 2009 publication of vertebroplasty “sham” trials? Osteoporos Int 29:375–383
Funding
No funds were received in support of this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
The trial was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees of Bellberry Limited (2011-08-414) and North Sydney Local Health District (HREC/11/HAWKE/228). The Human Research Committee at each participating centre approved the study, and all patients provided written informed consent.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Diamond, T., Clark, W., Bird, P. et al. Early vertebroplasty within 3 weeks of fracture for acute painful vertebral osteoporotic fractures: subgroup analysis of the VAPOUR trial and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 29, 1606–1613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06362-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06362-2