Der Unfallchirurg

, Volume 116, Issue 9, pp 813–824

Aktueller Stand der Vertebroplastie und Kyphoplastie in Deutschland

Eine Untersuchung in den operativen Fachdisziplinen
  • A. Krüger
  • J. Hierholzer
  • M. Bergmann
  • L. Oberkircher
  • S. Ruchholtz
Originalien
  • 759 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Um die Verbreitung des Einsatzes von Ballonkyphoplastie (BKP) und perkutaner Vertebroplastie (PVP) in Deutschland zu untersuchen, wurden bundesweit alle operativen Fachabteilungen befragt. Die Anwender wurden nach Indikationen, Erfahrung und Expertise, der Dauer von der Diagnose bis zum Eingriff und den Komplikationen befragt.

Methoden

Insgesamt wurden an 1330 operative Fachabteilungen Fragebögen versendet.

Ergebnis

Beantwortet wurden 582 Fragebögen (43,76%); 257 führten weder BKP, noch PVP durch; 314 Fragebögen konnten ausgewertet werden. Indikationen für beide Verfahren bilden osteoporotische Wirbelkörperfrakturen, in geringerem Maße auch Hämangiome und Metastasen. Zirka 30% der Kyphoplastieanwender erachten traumatische Wirbelkörperfrakturen bei jungen Patienten als Indikation. Neben BKP und PVP führen 76% der Befragten weitere Wirbelsäuleneingriffe durch. Innerhalb der ersten 2 Wochen nach Trauma werden bereits 71% der Befragten operativ tätig. Zementextravasationen stellen die häufigste Komplikation dar.

Schlussfolgerung

Es ist gelungen, einen repräsentativen Überblick über die gängige Praxis in Deutschland zu erhalten. BKP und PVP sind weit verbreitete Verfahren und werden größtenteils von Unfallchirurgen und Orthopäden verwendet. Sowohl Anwenderzahl als auch die jährlichen Fallzahlen in den einzelnen Zentren nehmen zu.

Schüsselwörter

Vertebroplastie Kyphoplastie Ballonkyphoplastie Wirbelkörperfrakturen Zementextravasationen 

Current status of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in Germany

An analysis of surgical disciplines

Abstract

Objective

This study was performed to provide an overview of the current practice of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) and percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) in Germany. All surgical departments were evaluated for indications, experience and expertise, and the complications.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed to 1330 surgical departments.

Results

A total of 582 (43.76%) surveys were returned; 257 departments perform neither BKP nor PVP. Osteoporotic compression fractures and to a lesser extent hemangiomas and metastasis were treated. About 30% of the BKP users consider traumatic vertebral fractures in young patients as an indication, 76% of the respondents perform further spinal surgery, and 71% of the users operate within the first 2 weeks. For both interventions cement leakage is the most common complication.

Conclusion

Nationwide kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty are widely used by surgeons. The number of users as well as the annual number of cases in each center are increasing continuously. The partially incomplete present state of the studies must be validated by future high-quality, randomized studies.

Keywords

Vertebroplasty Kyphoplasty Balloon kyphoplasty Vertebral fractures Cement leakages 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Anselmetti GC, Muto M, Guglielmi G et al (2010) Percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Radiol Clin North Am 48:641–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barr JD, Barr MS, Lemley TJ et al (2000) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for pain relief and spinal stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:923–928Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker S, Ogon M (2008) Balloon kyphoplasty. Springer, Wien NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berlemann U, Heini PF (2002) Percutaneous cementing techniques in treatment of osteoporotic spinal sintering. Unfallchirurg 105:2–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361:557–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bula P, Lein T, Strassberger C et al (2010) Balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: indications – treatment strategy – complications. Z Orthop Unfall 148:646–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cortet B, Cotten A, Boutry N et al (1997) Percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteolytic metastases or multiple myeloma. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 64:177–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalbayrak S, Onen MR, Yilmaz M et al (2010) Clinical and radiographic results of balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of vertebral body metastases and multiple myelomas. J Clin Neurosci 17:219–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deramond H, Depriester C, Galibert P et al (1998) Percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate. Technique, indications, and results. Radiol Clin North Am 36:533–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Druschel C, Schaser KD, Melcher I et al (2011) Minimally invasive combined anterior kyphoplasty for osteolytic C2 and C5 metastases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(7):977–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, Lunt M et al (2002) Incidence of vertebral fracture in europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 17:716–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frankel BM, Monroe T, Wang C (2007) Percutaneous vertebral augmentation: an elevation in adjacent-level fracture risk in kyphoplasty as compared with vertebroplasty. Spine J 7:575–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fribourg D, Tang C, Sra P et al (2004) Incidence of subsequent vertebral fracture after kyphoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2270–2276, discussion 2277Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo J, Ding W, Shen Y et al (2010) Selective treatment of aged osteoporosis thoracolumbar vertebrae burst fracture with balloon kyphoplasty. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 24:1341–1344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrop JS, Prpa B, Reinhardt MK et al (2004) Primary and secondary osteoporosis‘ incidence of subsequent vertebral compression fractures after kyphoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2120–2125Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hartmann F, Gercek E, Leiner L et al (2010) Kyphoplasty as an alternative treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures Magerl type A3. InjuryGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heran MK, Legiehn GM, Munk PL (2006) Current concepts and techniques in percutaneous vertebroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 37:409–434, viiPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hillmeier J (2010) Balloon kyphoplasty. Orthopade 39:665–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang HB, Bao F, Ji XR et al (2008) Clinical application of the combination of postural reduction and kyphoplasty for traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures. Zhongguo Gu Shang 21:656–657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ et al (2006) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1983–2001Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim SB, Jeon TS, Lee WS et al (2010) Comparison of kyphoplasty and lordoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Asian Spine J 4:102–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim YY, Rhyu KW (2010) Recompression of vertebral body after balloon kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Eur Spine J 19:1907–1912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klazen CA, Lohle PN, Vries J de et al (2010) Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 376:1085–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klazen CA, Venmans A, Vries J de et al (2010) Percutaneous vertebroplasty is not a risk factor for new osteoporotic compression fractures: results from VERTOS II. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:1447–1450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Korovessis P, Zacharatos S, Repantis T et al (2008) Evolution of bone mineral density after percutaneous kyphoplasty in fresh osteoporotic vertebral body fractures and adjacent vertebrae along with sagittal spine alignment. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:293–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285:320–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maestretti G, Cremer C, Otten P et al (2007) Prospective study of standalone balloon kyphoplasty with calcium phosphate cement augmentation in traumatic fractures. Eur Spine J 16:601–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masala S, Anselmetti GC, Muto M et al (2011) Percutaneous vertebroplasty relieves pain in metastatic cervical fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:715–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pflugmacher R, Schroeder RJ, Klostermann CK (2006) Incidence of adjacent vertebral fractures in patients treated with balloon kyphoplasty: two years‘ prospective follow-up. Acta Radiol 47:830–840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rastogi R, Patel T, Swarm RA (2010) Vertebral augmentation for compression fractures caused by malignant disease. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8:1095–1102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Röllinghoff M, Zarghooni K, Schlüter-Brust K et al (2010) Indications and contraindications for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:765–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schofer MD, Illian CH, Illian JB et al (2008) Balloon kyphoplasty for recent vertebral fractures in the elderly. Orthopade 37:462–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stiletto R, Brünning B, Krüger A et al (10/2005) Aktueller Stand der Vertebroplastie und Kyphoplastie in Deutschland. Orthop Prax:517–521Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Fritzell P (2006) Balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures: a comparative systematic review of efficacy and safety. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2747–2755Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Voggenreiter G (2005) Balloon kyphoplasty is effective in deformity correction of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2806–2812Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wardlaw D, Cummings SR, Van Meirhaeghe J et al (2009) Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 373:1016–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yan D, Duan L, Li J et al (2010) Comparative study of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(5):645–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zou J, Mei X, Gan M et al (2010) Kyphoplasty for spinal fractures from multiple myeloma. J Surg Oncol 102:43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Krüger
    • 1
  • J. Hierholzer
    • 2
  • M. Bergmann
    • 1
  • L. Oberkircher
    • 1
  • S. Ruchholtz
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik für Unfall-, Wiederherstellungs- und HandchirurgiePhilipps-Universität Marburg, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort MarburgMarburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Diagnostische und interventionelle RadiologieKlinikum Ernst von BergmannPotsdamDeutschland

Personalised recommendations