Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Safety and effectiveness of percutaneous sacroplasty: a single-centre experience in 58 consecutive patients with tumours or osteoporotic insufficient fractures treated under fluoroscopic guidance

  • Special Report
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To report our experience in percutaneous sacroplasty (PSP) for tumours and insufficiency fractures of the sacrum.

Methods

Single-centre retrospective analysis of 58 consecutive patients who underwent 67 PSPs for intractable pain from sacral tumours (84.5 %) or from osteoporotic fractures (15.5 %). The following data were assessed: visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after the procedure for global pain; short-term (1-month) clinical follow-up using a four-grade patient satisfaction scale (worse, unchanged, mild improvement and significant improvement); modification in analgesics consumption; referred short-term walking mobility. Minor and major complications were systematically assessed.

Results

The mean VAS score was 5.3 ± 2.0 in pre-procedure and 1.7 ± 1.8 in post-procedure. At 1-month follow-up, 34/58 (58.5 %) patients experienced a mild improvement; 15/58 (26 %) presented a significant improvement while 4/58 (7 %) and 5/58 (8.5 %) patients had unchanged or worse pain, respectively. Decreased analgesic consumption was observed in 34 % (20/58) of the patients. Eighty percent of patients with walking limitation experienced improvement, 16 % remained unchanged and 4 % were worse. We noted minor complications in 2/58 patients (3.4 %) and major complications in 2/58 patients (3.4 %).

Conclusion

Percutaneous sacroplasty for metastatic and osteoporotic fractures is a safe and effective technique in terms of pain relief and functional outcome.

Key points

• Percutaneous sacroplasty provides pain relief and functional improvement for insufficiency sacral fractures.

• Percutaneous sacroplasty provides pain relief and function improvement for sacral tumours.

• The major complication rate is acceptable (3.4 %), and is higher in sacral tumours.

• Posterior wall/cortical sacral bone disruption is not statistically associated with more complications.

• However, osteolytic tumours seem to be associated with higher risk of complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PSP:

Percutaneous sacroplasty

PV:

Percutaneous vertebroplasty

PMMA:

Polymethyl methacrylate

References

  1. Strub WM, Hoffmann M, Ernst RJ et al (2007) Sacroplasty by CT and fluoroscopic guidance: is the procedure right for your patient? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:38–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang J, Wu CG, Gu YF et al (2008) Percutaneous sacroplasty for sacral metastatic tumours under fluoroscopic guidance only. Korean J Radiol 9:572–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klazen CAH, Lohle PNM, de Vries J et al (2010) Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 376:1085–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saliou G, Kocheida EM, Lehmann P et al (2010) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for pain management in malignant fractures of the spine with epidural involvement. Radiology 254:882–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mailli L, Filippiadis DK, Brountzos EN et al (2013) Clinical Outcome and Safety of Multilevel Vertebroplasty: Clinical Experience and Results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Masala S, Mastrangeli R, Petrella MC et al (2009) Percutaneous vertebroplasty in 1,253 levels: results and long-term effectiveness in a single centre. Eur Radiol 19:165–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Whitlow CT, Mussat-Whitlow BJ, Mattern CWT et al (2007) Sacroplasty versus vertebroplasty: comparable clinical outcomes for the treatment of fracture-related pain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1266–1270

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Trouvin A-P, Alcaix D, Somon T et al (2012) Analgesic effect of sacroplasty in osteoporotic sacral fractures: a study of six cases. Joint Bone Spine 79:500–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kang S-S, Kim H-C, Park J-H et al (2009) Three-dimensional C-arm computed tomography-guided sacroplasty for the treatment of sacral body fracture. Spine 34:309–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Naderi S, Ilaslan H, Aslan A et al (2010) Sacroplasty: report of three cases. Turk Neurosurg 20:418–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kang SE, Lee JW, Kim JH et al (2011) Percutaneous sacroplasty with the use of C-arm flat-panel detector CT: technical feasibility and clinical outcome. Skeletal Radiol 40:453–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jayaraman MV, Chang H, Ahn SH (2009) An easily identifiable anatomic landmark for fluoroscopically guided sacroplasty: anatomic description and validation with treatment in 13 patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:1070–1073

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ehrlich GE (2003) Low back pain. Bull World Health Organ 81:671–676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Katsanos K, Sabharwal T, Adam A (2010) Percutaneous cementoplasty. Semin Intervent Radiol 27:137–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (1995) The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 17:505S–511S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Quraishi NA, Giannoulis KE, Edwards KL et al (2012) Management of metastatic sacral tumours. Eur Spine J 21:1984–1993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pascal-Moussellard H, Broc G, Pointillart V et al. Complications of vertebral metastasis surgery. Eur Spine J 7:438–444

  18. Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P et al (1987) Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 33:166–168

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Choi K-M, Song J-H, Ahn S-K et al (2010) Therapeutic considerations of percutaneous sacroplasty for the sacral insufficiency fracture. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47:58–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kayanja M, Tsai E, Yamashita T et al (2006) The Biomechanics of Insufficiency Fractures and Augmentation of the Sacrum. Spine J 6:96S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Belkoff SM, Molloy S (2003) Temperature measurement during polymerization of polymethylmethacrylate cement used for vertebroplasty. Spine 28:1555–1559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vilmarsson V, Schnabel K, Wikholm G (2010) Osteoporotic sacral fracture—a painful condition, easy to miss. Sacroplasty a new treatment with quick pain relief. Lakartidningen 107:251–254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lyders EM, Whitlow CT, Baker MD et al (2010) Imaging and treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:201–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ehara S (2006) Percutaneous sacroplasty for osteoporotic insufficiency fractures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:580, author reply 580–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Garant M (2002) Sacroplasty: a new treatment for sacral insufficiency fracture. J Vasc Interv Radiol 13:1265–1267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cho CH, Mathis JM, Ortiz O (2010) Sacral fractures and sacroplasty. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 20:179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Frey ME, Depalma MJ, Cifu DX et al (2008) Percutaneous sacroplasty for osteoporotic sacral insufficiency fractures: a prospective, multicenter, observational pilot study. Spine J 8:367–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bayley E, Srinivas S, Boszczyk BM (2009) Clinical outcomes of sacroplasty in sacral insufficiency fractures: a review of the literature. Eur Spine J 18:1266–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nebreda C, Vallejo R, Aliaga L et al (2011) Percutaneous sacroplasty and sacroiliac joint cementation under fluoroscopic guidance for lower back pain related to sacral metastatic tumours with sacroiliac joint invasion. Pain Pract 11:564–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wee B, Shimal A, Stirling AJ et al (2008) CT-guided sacroplasty in advanced sacral destruction secondary to tumour infiltration. Clin Radiol 63:906–912

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Valencia-Anguita J, Juliá-Narváez M, Rodríguez-Burgos F et al (2007) Percutaneous sacroplasty for relieving pain caused by sacral metastases. Neurocirugia (Astur) 18:247–249

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Uemura A, Matsusako M, Numaguchi Y et al (2005) Percutaneous sacroplasty for hemorrhagic metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:493–495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sun G, Jin P, Li M et al. (2011) Three-dimensional C-arm computed tomography reformation combined with fluoroscopic-guided sacroplasty for sacral metastases. Support Care Cancer. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22081116

  34. Basile A, Tsetis D, Cavalli M et al (2010) Sacroplasty for local or massive localization of multiple myeloma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33:1270–1277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kortman K, Ortiz O, Miller T et al (2012) Multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of sacroplasty in patients with osteoporotic sacral insufficiency fractures or pathologic sacral lesions. J Neurointervent Surg. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010347

    Google Scholar 

  36. Laredo J-D, Hamze B (2005) Complications of percutaneous vertebroplasty and their prevention. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 26:65–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Brook AL, Mirsky DM, Bello JA (2005) Computerized tomography guided sacroplasty: a practical treatment for sacral insufficiency fracture: case report. Spine 30:E450–E454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gjertsen O, Schellhorn T, Nakstad PH (2008) Fluoroscopy-guided sacroplasty: special focus on preoperative planning from three-dimensional computed tomography. Acta Radiol 49:1042–1048

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France

    Licia Pacheco Pereira, Frédéric Clarençon, Évelyne Cormier & Jacques Chiras

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France

    Michèle Rose & Lise Le Jean

  3. Department of Neuroradiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 47, Bd de l’Hôpital., 75013, Paris, France

    Frédéric Clarençon

  4. Department of Neuoradiology, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Beatrix Jean

Authors
  1. Licia Pacheco Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frédéric Clarençon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Évelyne Cormier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michèle Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beatrix Jean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lise Le Jean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jacques Chiras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frédéric Clarençon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pereira, L.P., Clarençon, F., Cormier, É. et al. Safety and effectiveness of percutaneous sacroplasty: a single-centre experience in 58 consecutive patients with tumours or osteoporotic insufficient fractures treated under fluoroscopic guidance. Eur Radiol 23, 2764–2772 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2881-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2881-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation