Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 130, Issue 9, pp 1157–1166 | Cite as

Adjacent vertebral fractures after percutaneous vertebral augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a comparison of balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty

  • I. MovrinEmail author
  • R. Vengust
  • R. Komadina
Osteoporotic Fracture Management



It is still controversial whether adjacent level compression fractures after balloon kyphoplasty (BK) and vertebroplasty (VP) should be regarded as the consequence of stiffness achieved by augmentation with bone cement or if the adjacent level fractures are simply the result of the natural progression of osteoporosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adjacent level fracture risk after BK as compared with VP and to determine the possible dominant risk factor associated with new compression fractures.

Materials and methods

73 consecutive patients with painful vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) were enrolled in a prospective nonrandomized study. BK was performed in 46 patients (51 vertebral bodies) and VP in 27 patients (32 vertebral bodies). The first patient’s visit was before the operative procedure, when clinical and radiographical examinations were done. The follow-up visits, considered in the analysis, were on the first day and after 1 year, postoperatively.


In 1 year, 3 out of 46 patients (6.5%) treated with BK, and 2 out of 27 patients (7.4%) treated with VP sustained adjacent level fracture. More patients with a BMD higher or equal to 3.0 experienced a new fracture than those with a BMD less than 3.0 (odds ratio = 13.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.35–124.81), and the risk for adjacent level fractures decreased significantly when the postoperative kyphotic angle was less than 9° compared with that of higher or equal to 9° (odds ratio = 12.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.25–114.88).


Our results indicate that BK and VP are methods with a low risk of adjacent level fractures. The most important factors for new VCFs after a percutaneous augmentation procedure are the degree of osteoporosis and altered biomechanics in the treated area of the spine due to resistant kyphosis. These results suggest that the adjacent vertebrae would fracture eventually, even without the procedure. BK and VP offer a comparable rate of pain relief.


Balloon kyphoplasty BMD Comparative analysis Local kyphosis Osteoporosis PMMA Vertebroplasty 


  1. 1.
    Aebli N et al (2002) Fat embolism and acute hypotension during vertebroplasty: an experimental study in sheep. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(5):460–466Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ananthakrishnan D et al (2005) The effect on anterior column loading due to different vertebral augmentation techniques. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Assessment of fracture risk, its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis (1994) Report of a WHO Study Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 843:1–129Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barr JD et al (2000) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for pain relief and spinal stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(8):923–928Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belkoff SM et al (2001) An ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of an inflatable bone tamp used in the treatment of compression fracture. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(2):151–156Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berlemann U et al (2002) Adjacent vertebral failure after vertebroplasty. A biomechanical investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(5):748–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Briggs AM et al (2006) The effect of osteoporotic vertebral fracture on predicted spinal loads in vivo. Eur Spine J 15(12):1785–1795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook DJ et al (1993) Quality of life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 36(6):750–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deramond H et al (1997) Percutaneous vertebroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 1(2):285–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(4):257–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fribourg D et al (2004) Incidence of subsequent vertebral fracture after kyphoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(20):2270–2276 (discussion 2277)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galibert P et al (1987) Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 33(2):166–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garfin SR, Yuan HA, Reiley MA (2001) New technologies in spine: kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(14):1511–1515Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genant HK et al (1999) Interim report and recommendations of the World Health Organization Task-Force for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 10(4):259–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grados F et al (2000) Long-term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39(12):1410–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greene DL et al (2007) The eggshell technique for prevention of cement leakage during kyphoplasty. J Spinal Disord Tech 20(3):229–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felsenberg D et al (2002) Incidence of vertebral fracture in europe: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). J Bone Miner Res 17(4):716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hiwatashi A et al (2003) Increase in vertebral body height after vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24(2):185–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hulme PA et al (2006) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(17):1983–2001Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim MJ et al (2006) Vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty: biomechanical behavior under repetitive loading conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(18):2079–2084Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim SH et al (2004) Risk factors of new compression fractures in adjacent vertebrae after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Acta Radiol 45(4):440–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klotzbuecher CM et al (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures: a summary of the literature and statistical synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 15(4):721–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Komemushi A et al (2006) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic compression fracture: multivariate study of predictors of new vertebral body fracture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29(4):580–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuklo TR et al (2001) Measurement of thoracic and lumbar fracture kyphosis: evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(1):61–65 (discussion 66)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leib ES et al (2004) Official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. J Clin Densitom 7(1):1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liebschner MA, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM (2001) Effects of bone cement volume and distribution on vertebral stiffness after vertebroplasty. Spine 26(14):1547–1554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin EP et al (2004) Vertebroplasty: cement leakage into the disc increases the risk of new fracture of adjacent vertebral body. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25(2):175–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindsay R, Burge RT, Strauss DM (2005) One year outcomes and costs following a vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 16(1):78–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lindsay R et al (2001) Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 285(3):320–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lunt M et al (2003) Characteristics of a prevalent vertebral deformity predict subsequent vertebral fracture: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Bone 33(4):505–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McKiernan F, Jensen R, Faciszewski T (2003) The dynamic mobility of vertebral compression fractures. J Bone Miner Res 18(1):24–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Melton LJ 3rd et al (1999) Vertebral fractures predict subsequent fractures. Osteoporos Int 10(3):214–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perez-Higueras A et al (2002) Percutaneous vertebroplasty: long-term clinical and radiological outcome. Neuroradiology 44(11):950–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Phillips FM et al (2002) An in vivo comparison of the potential for extravertebral cement leak after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(19):2173–2178 (discussion 2178–2179)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Polikeit A, Nolte LP, Ferguson SJ (2003) The effect of cement augmentation on the load transfer in an osteoporotic functional spinal unit: finite-element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(10):991–996Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Takata S, Yasui N (2001) Disuse osteoporosis. J Med Invest 48(3–4):147–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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(23):2747–2755Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Teng MM et al (2003) Kyphosis correction and height restoration effects of percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24(9):1893–1900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uppin AA et al (2003) Occurrence of new vertebral body fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. Radiology 226(1):119–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Villarraga ML et al (2005) The biomechanical effects of kyphoplasty on treated and adjacent nontreated vertebral bodies. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(1):84–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE (2007) Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 165(6):710–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yeom JS et al (2003) Leakage of cement in percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic compression fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(1):83–89Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of TraumatologyUniversity Medical Centre MariborMariborSlovenia
  2. 2.Orthopaedic ClinicUniversity Medical Centre LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Department of TraumatologyGeneral and Teaching Hospital CeljeCeljeSlovenia

Personalised recommendations