Vertebral augmentation with spinal implants: third-generation vertebroplasty

Abstract

This article is to review the different types of vertebral augmentation implants recently becoming available for the treatment of benign and malignant spinal compression fractures. After a detailed description of the augmentation implants, we review the available clinical data. We will conclude with a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of vertebral implants and how they can affect the future treatment options of compression fractures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Abbreviations

BKP:

Balloon kyphoplasty

VB:

Vertebral body

VP:

Vertebroplasty

VAS:

Visual analog score

ODS:

Ostwestery disability score

VBS:

Vertebral body stent

References

  1. 1.

    Yuan H, Brown C, Phillips F (2004) Osteoporotic spinal deformity: a biomechanical rationale for the clinical consequences and treatment of vertebral body compression fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 17(3):236–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Disch AC, Schmoelz W (2014) Cement augmentation in a thoracolumbar fracture model: reduction and stability after balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebral body stenting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1147–E1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Fürderer S, Anders M, Schwindling B, Salick M, Düber C, Wenda K, Urban R, Glück M, Eysel P (2002) Vertebral body stenting. A method for repositioning and augmenting vertebral compression fractures. Orthopade 31:356–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Diel P, Röder C, Perler G, Vordemvenne T, Scholz M, Kandziora F, Fürderer S, Eiskjaer S, Maestretti G, Rotter R, Benneker LM, Heini PF (2013) Radiographic and safety details of vertebral body stenting: results from a multicenter chart review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Muto M, Greco B, Setola F, Vassallo P, Ambrosanio G, Guarnieri G (2011) Vertebral body stenting system for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: followup at 12 months in 20 cases. Neuroradiol J 24(04):610–619

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hartmann F, Griese M, Dietz SO, Kuhn S, Rommens PM, Gercek E (2015) Two-year results of vertebral body stenting for the treatment of traumatic incomplete burst fractures. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 24(03):161–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Klezl Z, Majeed H, Bommireddy R, John J (2011) Early results after vertebral body stenting for fractures of the anterior column of the thoracolumbar spine. Injury 42:1038–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Werner CM, Osterhoff G, Schlickeiser J et al (2013) Vertebral body stenting versus kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:577–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tutton SM, Pflugmacher R, Davidian M, Beall DP, Facchini FR, Garfin SR. (2015) KAST study: the kiva system as a vertebral augmentation treatment—a safety and effectiveness trial: a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing the kiva system with balloon kyphoplasty in treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 15;40(12):865-875

  10. 10.

    Otten LA, Bornemnn R, Jansen TR, Kabir K, Pennekamp PH, Wirtz DC, Stuwe B, Pflugmacher R (2013) Comparison of balloon kyphoplasty with the new Kiva® VCF system for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures. Pain physician 16(5):E505–E512

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Korovessis P, Vardakastanis K, Repantis T, Vitsas V (2013) Balloon kyphoplasty versus KIVA vertebral augmentation—comparison of 2 techniques for osteoporotic vertebral body fractures: a prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(4):292–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Korovessis P, Vardakastanis K, Vitsas V, Syrimpeis V. (2014) Is Kiva implant advantageous to balloon kyphoplasty in treating osteolytic metastasis to the spine? Comparison of 2 percutaneous minimal invasive spine techniques: a prospective randomized controlled short-term study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 39(4):E231-E239

  13. 13.

    Muto M, Giurazza F, Guarnieri G, Miele V, Marcia S, Masala S, Guglielmi G (2017) Percutaneous treatment of vertebral fractures. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 21:349–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Vanni D, Pantalone A, Bigossi F, Pineto F, Lucantoni D, Salini V (2012) New perspective for third generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation procedures: preliminary results at 12 months. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 3:47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Krüger A, Oberkircher L, Flossdorf F et al (2012) Differences in the restoration of vertebral height after treatment of osteoporotic vertebra compression fractures: cadaver study. Eur Spine J 21:1415–1419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    KrügerA G, Baroud DN et al (2013) Height restoration and maintenance after treating unstable osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures by cement augmentation is dependent on the cement volume used. Clin Biomech 28(7):725–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Krüger A, Oberkircher L, Figiel J, Floßdorf F, Bolzinger F, Noriega DC, Ruchholtz S (2015) Height restoration of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures using different intravertebral reduction devices: a cadaveric study. Spine J 15(5):1092–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jacobson RE, Nenov A, Duong HD (2019) Re-expansion of osteoporotic compression fractures using bilateral SpineJack implants: early clinical experience and biomechanical considerations. Cureus 11(4):e4572. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4572

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Noriega DC, Maestretti G, Renaud C, Francaviglia N, Ould-Slimane M, Queinnec S, Ekkerlein H, Hassel F, Gumpert R, Sabatier P, Huet H, Plasencia M, Theumann N, Kunsky A, Krüger A (2015) Clinical performance and safety of 108 SpineJack implantations: 1-year results of a prospective multicentre single-arm registry study. Biomed Res Int 2015:173872

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Noriega DC, Ramajo RH, Lite IS, Toribio B, Corredera R, Ardura F, Krüger A (2016) Safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study. Osteoporos Int 27(6):2047–2055

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lin JH, Wang SH, Lin EY, Chiang YH (2016) Better height restoration, greater kyphosis correction, and fewer refractures of cemented vertebrae by using an intravertebral reduction device: a 1-year follow-up study. World Neurosurg 90:391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Noriega DC, Rodrίguez-Monsalve F, Ramajo R, Sánchez-Lite I, Toribio B, Ardura F. (2019) Long-term safety and clinical performance of kyphoplasty and SpineJack® procedures in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a pilot, monocentric, investigator-initiated study. Osteoporos Int 0(3):637–645, 30

  23. 23.

    Noriega DC, Marcia S, Theumann N, Blondel B, Simon A, Hassel F, Maestretti G, Petit A, Weidle PA, Mandly AG, Kaya JM, Touta A, Fuentes S, Pflugmacher R (2019) A prospective, international, randomized, noninferiority study comparing an implantable titanium vertebral augmentation device versus balloon kyphoplasty in the reduction of vertebral compression fractures (SAKOS study). Spine J 19(11):1782–1795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Meyblum L, Premat K, Elhorany M et al (2020) Safety of vertebral augmentation with cranio-caudal expansion implants in vertebral compression fractures with posterior wall protrusion. Eur Radiol 30

  25. 25.

    Verlaan JJ, van de Kraats EB, Oner FC, van Walsum T, Niessen WJ, Dhert WJ (2005) The reduction of endplate fractures during balloon vertebroplasty: a detailed radiological analysis of the treatment of burst fractures using pedicle screws, balloon vertebroplasty, and calcium phosphate cement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(16):1840–1845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Voggenreiter G (2005) Balloon kyphoplasty is effective in deformity correction of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(24):2806–2812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Verlaan JJ, van de Kraats EB, Oner FC, van Walsum T, Niessen WJ, Dhert WJ (2005) Bone displacement and the role of longitudinal ligaments during balloon vertebroplasty in traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(16):1832–1839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Galzio R, Kazakova A, Pantalone A, Grillea G, Bartolo M, Salini V, Magliani V (2016) Third-generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation systems. J Spine Surg 2(1):13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kerschbaumer G, Gaulin B, Ruatti S, Tonetti J, Boudissa M (2019) Clinical and radiological outcomes in thoracolumbar fractures using the SpineJack device. A prospective study of seventy-four patients with a two-point three year mean of follow-up. Int Orthop 43(12):2773–2779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Vanni D, Pantalone A, Magliani V, Salini V, Berjano P (2017) Corpectomy and expandable cage replacement versus third generation percutaneous augmentation system in case of vertebra plana: rationale and recommendations. J Spine Surg. 3(3):379–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cianfoni A, Distefano D, Isalberti M, Reinert M, Scarone P, Kuhlen D, Hirsch JA, Bonaldi G (2019) Stent-screw-assisted internal fixation: the SAIF technique to augment severe osteoporotic and neoplastic vertebral body fractures. J Neurointerv Surg 11(6):603–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Venier A, Roccatagliata L, Isalberti M, Scarone P, Kuhlen DE, Reinert M, Bonaldi G, Hirsch JA, Cianfoni A (2019) Armed kyphoplasty: an indirect central canal decompression technique in burst fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 40(11):1965–1972

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Anselmetti GC, Manca A, Tutton S, Chiara G, Kelekis A, Facchini FR, Russo F, Regge D, Montemurro F (2013) Percutaneous vertebral augmentation assisted by PEEK implant in painful osteolytic vertebral metastasis involving the vertebral wall: experience on 40 patients. Pain Physician 16(4):E397–E404

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bassem A. Georgy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Medtronic, Spineology, Merit Medical, Johnson & Johnson, SpinTech, Imaging3, IZI, Medlantis, Techlamed, Consultant, Peterson Enterprises, Medical Metrics, Radius Pharmaceuticals, Avanos, Vertiflex, Sollis Pharmaceuticals, Simplify Medical, Stryker, Lenoss Medical, Spine BioPharma, Piramal, ReGelTec, Nanofuse, Talosix, Spinal Simplicity, Pain Theory, Spark Biomedical. Medtronic, SpinTech, Medical Metrics, Avanos, Relievant, Vertiflex, Stryker, Sollis Pharmaceuticals, Simplify Medical, Lenoss Medical, Spine BioPharma. Medtronic, Imaging3, ReGelTec, Nanofuse, Talosix, Spinal Simplicity, Pain Theory, Spark Biomedical. SpinTech, Nocimed. Artio, Sophiris, Eleven Biotherapeutics, Radius Pharmaceuticals, Flow Forward, Lenoss Medical, Spine BioPharma. Thieme, Springer, Humana. Radius Pharmaceuticals, Stryker, Medtronic, Vertiflex, Merit, Medlantis, Avanos, Piramal.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Key Points

1. Describe different types of vertebral implants available for treatment of spinal compression fractures

2. Outline published clinical data for each implant

3. Summarize the pros and cons of this new technique, the so called third generation vertebroplasty

4. Outline future role in treatment of traumatic and malignant lesions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manz, D., Georgy, M., Beall, D.P. et al. Vertebral augmentation with spinal implants: third-generation vertebroplasty. Neuroradiology 62, 1607–1615 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-020-02516-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Vertebroplasty
  • Kyphoplasty
  • Compression fractures
  • Implants