Cement bone augmentation has become very popular worldwide in treating painful noncomplicated spine fractures. Controversy about the effectiveness was raised by two randomized trials in 2009. Recent new evidence contradicts those findings giving credit to vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty.
Well designed prospective clinical trials in cancer and noncancer vertebral fractures as well as an excellent meta-analysis showed that painful vertebral compression fractures have better and faster pain relief, better functional outcomes, and with low complication rate when treated with percutaneous cement than conservatively.
The saga is unfinished. The treatment of vertebral compression fractures with cement augmentation is still in its infancy. The potential for development with new materials and the injection of biologic and active bone cements or anticancer products, in metastatic disease, will revolutionize the treatment of this condition.
"The debate about vertebral augmentation continues. One ongoing study that may shed light on the matter is the VERTOS IV trial, a non-industry supported, prospective randomized controlled trial of 180 patients that compares vertebroplasty to sham procedure, similar to the New England Journal of Medicine studies, but uses the strict inclusion criteria of the VERTOS II trial.69,70 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Vertebral compression fractures are a prevalent disease affecting osteoporotic patients. When symptomatic, they cause significant pain and loss of function and have a high public health impact. In this paper we outline the diagnosis and management of these patients, with evidence-based review of treatment outcomes for the various therapeutic options. Diagnosis involves a clinical history focusing on the nature of the patient's pain as well as various imaging studies. Management is multimodal in nature and starts with conservative therapy consisting of analgesic medication, medication for osteoporosis, physical therapy, and bracing. Patients who are refractory to conservative management may be candidates for vertebral augmentation through either vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty.
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 06/2013; 6:205-14. DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S31659
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
The transpedicular route in percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a well-established approach for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, the value of simple transpedicular biopsy in VCFs is less addressed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the value of transpedicular biopsy during PVP for uncovering the malignancy in VCFs in a 10-year retrospective study.
Materials and methods:
During the study period of the 1019 patients who underwent PVP for VCFs, 450 patients comprising of 127 male and 323 female underwent transpedicular biopsy during PVP for 705 fractured vertebras. The medical records were analyzed for age, gender, imaging studies, operation notes, pre-operative and post-operative diagnoses, date of vertebroplasty and biopsy, vertebral level and pathological reports.
Pathology of the specimens of the 450 patients confirmed non-malignant VCFs in 389 (86.44%) and malignancy in 61 (13.56%). The malignant pathology included: 52 (11.56%) distant metastases to vertebra, in 3 (0.67%) of the spinal metastases was unsuspected and in 49 (10.89%) of them the malignancy was suspected pre-operatively. There were 9 (2%) primary spinal malignancies, 2 (0.44%) unsuspected multiple myeloma and 7 (1.56%) pre-operatively suspected primary malignancies. The frequency of unsuspected malignancy was 1.11% (5/450) in this study. There was no complication associated with transpedicular biopsy during PVP.
VCFs harbored 1.11% of unexpected malignancy. During the vertebroplasty, concomitant transpedicular vertebral biopsy is a safe and useful procedure for distinguishing non-malignant from malignant compression fractures, especially in diagnosing unsuspected malignancy.
Neurology India 11/2013; 61(6):587-592. DOI:10.4103/0028-3886.125249 · 1.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.