European Spine Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 1242–1250

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures

  • Salvatore Masala
  • Anna Micaela Ciarrapico
  • Daniel Konda
  • Vincenzo Vinicola
  • Matteo Mammucari
  • Giovanni Simonetti
Original Article

Abstract

A retrospective study was conducted in 179 consecutive patients (48 males, 131 females; mean age: 72.0 ± 8.59 years; range: 51–93) with single symptomatic acute amyelic osteoporotic vertebral fracture presenting between September 2004 and September 2005 to the Santa Lucia Foundation in Rome, Italy. Vertebral fractures usually become manifest due to pain which can be debilitating. Treatment depends on the presence or absence of spinal cord involvement. In the first case, surgical stabilization is mandatory. In the second case, treatment may be performed either by conservative medical therapy (CMT) or percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty. After 2 weeks of analgesic therapy, 153 patients presented refractory pain and were offered treatment by PVT. A total of 58 patients accepted and underwent PVT (PVT group), while 95 refused and underwent conservative medical therapy (CMT group). Follow-up was performed by specialist consults, spine radiography and MRI and a self-assessment questionnaire evaluating pain using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and function using an ambulation and an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale. A 12-month follow-up was obtained in 86 of 95 (90.5%) CMT group patients and 54 of 58 (93.1%) PVT group patients. Significant reduction of VAS and improvement of ambulation and ADL was observed in both groups at 1 week and 3 and 12 months (P < 0.05; Wilcoxon signed rank test), however, these results were significantly superior in the PVT group at 1 week and 3 months (P < 0.05; Mann–Whitney U test). Average cost per patient at 1 week and 3 and 12 months were respectively 755.49 ± 661.96, 3791.95 ± 3341.97 and 4299.55 ± 3211.53 € (CMT group) and 3311.35 ± 0.32, 3745.30 ± 3.59 and 4101.05 ± 755.41 € (PVT group). PVT resulted significantly more cost-effective than CMT with regards to the three scales at 1 week (P < 0.05; Mann–Whitney U test). At 3 months PVT was more cost-effective than CMT with regards to the three scales, however, the difference was significant only with regards to ambulation. No significant differences in cost-effectiveness where found between the two groups at 12 months. PVT should be considered the treatment of first choice in symptomatic acute amyelic osteoporotic vertebral fractures with refractory pain after a short period of analgesic therapy.

Keywords

Percutaneous vertebroplasty Vertebral fracture Osteoporosis Cost-effectiveness 

References

  1. 1.
    Barth RW, Lane JM (1998) Osteoporosis. Orthop Clin North Am 19:845–858Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper C (1999) Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int 9:S2–S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coumans JV, Reinhardt MK, Lieberman IH (2003) Kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures: 1-year clinical outcomes from a prospective study. J Neurosurg 99:44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 114:257–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans AJ, Jensen ME, Kip KE et al (2003) Vertebral compression fractures: pain reduction and improvements in functional mobility after percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty: retrospective report of 245 scases. Radiology 226:366–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finnern HW, Sykes DP (2003) The hospital cost of vertebral fractures in the EU: estimates using national datasets. Osteoporos Int 14:429–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grados F, Depriester C, Cayrolle G et al (2000) Long-term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Rheumatology 39:1410–1414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L, Al E (1999) Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women: the study of osteoporotic fracture. Arch Intern Med 159:1215–1220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Legroux-Gerot I, Lormeau C, Boutry N et al (2004) Long-term follow up of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Clin Rheumatol 23:310–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Masala S, Fiori R, Massari F, Simonetti G (2003) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: new equipment for malignant vertebral fractures treatment. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 22:75–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGraw JK, Lippert JA, Minkus KD et al (2002) Prospective evaluation of pain relief in 100 patients undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty: results and follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13:883–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKiernan F, Faciszewski T, Jensen R (2004) Quality of life following vertebroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:2600–2606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, Varlow J et al (1999) The prevalence of vertebral deformity in European men and women: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. J Bone Miner Res 11:1010–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ross PD (1997) Clinical consequences of vertebral fractures. Am J Med 103:S30–S43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silverman SL (1992) The clinical consequences of vertebral compression fracture. Bone 13:S27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stallmeyer MJ, Zoarski GH, Obuchowski AM (2003) Optimizing patient selection in percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:683–696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watts NB (2001) Osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Neurosurg Focus 10:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu SS, Lachmann E, Nagler W (2003) Current medical, rehabilitation, and surgical management of vertebral compression fractures. J Womens Health 12:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Masala
    • 1
  • Anna Micaela Ciarrapico
    • 2
  • Daniel Konda
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Vinicola
    • 3
  • Matteo Mammucari
    • 1
  • Giovanni Simonetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Molecular Imaging, Interventional Radiology and Radiation TherapyUniversity Polyclinic of Tor VergataRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Public Health and Cell Biology, School of MedicineUniversity of Tor VergataRomeItaly
  3. 3.Center for Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure of OsteoporosisSanta Lucia FoundationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations