Advertisement

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty is no Risk Factor for New Vertebral Fractures and Protects Against Further Height Loss (VERTOS IV)

  • Cristina E. FiranescuEmail author
  • Jolanda de Vries
  • Paul Lodder
  • Marinus C. Schoemaker
  • Albert J. Smeets
  • Esther Donga
  • Job R. Juttmann
  • Caroline A. H. Klazen
  • Otto E. H. Elgersma
  • Frits H. Jansen
  • Irene van der Horst
  • Marion Blonk
  • Alexander Venmans
  • Paul N. M. Lohle
Clinical Investigation Non-Vascular Interventions
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Non-Vascular Interventions

Abstract

Background

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) is an alternative option to treat pain after an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). Controversy exists as to whether PV increases the risk of new OVCFs or prevents further vertebral height loss in treated levels. We assessed both during 1-year follow-up in patients with acute OVCF randomised to PV or a sham procedure.

Methods

VERTOS IV is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing PV with sham therapy in 180 patients. New OVCFs and further vertebral height loss were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

After a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range (IQR) = 12–12) 31 new fractures were reported in 15 patients from the PV group and 28 new fractures in 19 patients from the sham group. The occurrence of new vertebral fractures did not significantly differ between the groups (χ2(1) = 0.83, p = 0.36, OR = .71, 95%CI = 0.33–1.50). There was no higher fracture risk of adjacent versus distant vertebrae. After sham procedure, further height loss of treated vertebrae occurred more frequently (7 patients (8%) in the PV group and 39 (45%) in the sham group (χ2(1) = 28.85, p < 0.001, OR = 9.84, 95%CI = 4.08–23.73)) and was more severe (p < .001) than after PV.

Conclusions

The risk of further vertebral height loss is significantly lower after PV compared to a sham intervention, i.e. PV protects against progressive vertebral height loss. In addition, PV does not increase the risk of new adjacent and distant OVCFs.

Level of Evidence

Level 1a, therapeutic study.

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01200277

Keywords

Osteoporotic percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) Vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) Visual analogue scale (VAS) Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) VERTOS IV Randomised controlled trial (RCT) 

Notes

Authors Contribution

CEF and PNML had full access to all the data in the study, take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis, and act as guarantors. PNML, CAHK, JdV, MCS, AJS, JRJ, ED, OEHE, and FHJ designed the study. IVDH, MB, and KS gathered the data. PNML, MCS, AJS, CAHK, OEHE, and FHJ performed the procedures. PL and JdV analysed the data. CEF and AV undertook morphometric measurements. CEF, PNML, AV, JdV, and PL wrote the first draft, and all the contributors made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Funding

This study was supported by Stryker (Grant No. S-I-013). The sponsor had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This trial was an institutional review board-approved sham-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial performed at four community hospitals in the Netherlands (MN-11-004, approval protocol 1055).

References

  1. 1.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17:1726–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hasserius R, Karlsson MK, Jonsson B, et al. 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. 2005;76:235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klazen CA, Verhaar HJ, Lohle PN, et al. Clinical course of pain in acute, osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. JVIR. 2010;21:1405–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uppin AA, Hirsch JA, Centenera LV, et al. Occurrence of new vertebral body fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. Radiology. 2003;226(1):119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin EP, Ekholm S, Hiwatashi A, Westesson PL. Vertebroplasty: cement leakage into the disc increases the risk of new fracture of adjacent vertebral body. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25:175–80.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grados F, Depriester C, Cayrolle G, Hardy N, Deramond H, Fardellone P. Long-term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Rheumatol (Oxf). 2000;39:1410–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baroud G, Heini P, Nemes J, Bohner M, Ferguson S, Steffen T. Biomechanical explanation of adjacent fractures following vertebroplasty. Radiology. 2003;229:606–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mudano AS, Bian J, Cope JU, et al. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are associated with an increased risk of secondary vertebral compression fractures: a population-based cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:819–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al-Ali F, Barrow T, Luke K. Vertebroplasty: what is important and what is not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1835–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hierholzer J, Fuchs H, Westphalen K, Baumann C, Slotosch C, Schulz R. Incidence of symptomatic vertebral fractures in patients after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2008;31:1178–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diamond TH, Bryant C, Browne L, Clark WA. Clinical outcomes after acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a 2-year non-randomised trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with conservative therapy. Med J Aust. 2006;184:113–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klazen CA, Venmans A, de Vries J, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty is not a risk factor for new osteoporotic compression fractures: results from VERTOS II. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(8):1447–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA. 2001;285:320–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Firanescu C, Lohle PN, de Vries J, et al. VERTOS IV study group. A randomised sham controlled trial of vertebroplasty for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VERTOS IV). Trials. 2011;12:93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijk C, Nevitt MC. Vertebral fracture assessment using a semiquantitative technique. J Bone Miner Res. 1993;8:1137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eastell R, Cedel SL, Wahner HW, Riggs BL, Melton LJ III. Classification of vertebral fractures. J Bone Miner Res. 1991;6:207–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu CW, Hsu CY, Shih TT, et al. Vertebral osteonecrosis: MR imaging findings and related changes on adjacent levels. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(1):42–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, et al. Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture intervention trial research group. Lancet. 1996;348:1535–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pitton MB, Herber S, Bletz C, et al. CT-guided vertebroplasty in osteoprotic vertebral fractures: incidence of secondary fractures and impact of intradiscal cement leakages during follow-up. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Edidin AA, Ong KL, Lau E, et al. Morbidity and mortality after vertebral fractures: comparison of vertebral augmentation and nonoperative management in the medicare population. Spine. 2015;40:1228–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ong KL, Beall DP, Frohbergh M, et al. Were VCF patients at higher risk of mortality following the 2009 publication of vertebroplasty “sham” trials? Osteoporos Int. 2018;29:375–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P, Diamond TH, et al. Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:1408–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trout AT, Kallmes DF, Kaufmann TJ. New fractures after vertebroplasty: adjacent fractures occur significantly sooner. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:217–23.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marcia S, Muto M, Hirsch JA, et al. What is the role of vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic fractures? A review of the recent literature. Neuroradiology. 2018;60(8):777–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang H, Xu C, Zhang T, et al. Does percutaneous vertebroplasty or balloon kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures increase the incidence of new vertebral fractures?A meta-analysis. Pain Phys. 2017;20(1):E13–28.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J, et al. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1085–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venmans A, Klazen CA, van Rooij WJ, et al. Postprocedural CT for perivertebral cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty is not necessary: results from VERTOS II. Neuroradiology. 2011;53(1):19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin EP, Ekholm S, Hiwatashi A, et al. Vertebroplasty: cement leakage into the disc increases the risk of new fracture of adjacent vertebral body. Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(2):175–80.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bae JS, Park JH, Kim KJ, et al. Analysis of risk factors for secondary new vertebral compression fracture following percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. World Neurosurg. 2017;99:387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venmans A, Klazen CA, Lohle PN, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and pulmonary cement embolism: results from VERTOS II. Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(8):1451–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Firanescu CE, de Vries J, Lodder P, et al. Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): randomised sham controlled clinical trial. BMJ. 2018;9:361.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(6):569–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(6):557–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lange A, Kasperk C, Alvares L, et al. Survival and cost comparison of kyphoplasty and percutaneous vertebroplasty using German claims data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(4):318–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina E. Firanescu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jolanda de Vries
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul Lodder
    • 2
  • Marinus C. Schoemaker
    • 1
  • Albert J. Smeets
    • 1
  • Esther Donga
    • 1
  • Job R. Juttmann
    • 1
  • Caroline A. H. Klazen
    • 3
  • Otto E. H. Elgersma
    • 4
  • Frits H. Jansen
    • 5
  • Irene van der Horst
    • 5
  • Marion Blonk
    • 5
  • Alexander Venmans
    • 1
  • Paul N. M. Lohle
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Radiology and Internal MedicineElisabeth TweeSteden HospitalTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical and Clinical PsychologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMedisch Spectrum TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyAlbert Schweitzer HospitalDordrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyCatharina HospitalEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations