Clinical course of pain in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.
ABSTRACT The authors prospectively determined the natural course of pain in patients with conservatively treated acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF). In addition, the type of conservative therapy that these patients received was assessed.
Patients older than 50 years, referred for spine radiography for acute back pain, were asked to complete a baseline clinical questionnaire. Patients with an acute VCF were followed up at 6 and 23 months with a questionnaire that included a Visual Analog Score (VAS) and type of pain medication and other conservative treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as a decrease in VAS of 50% or more.
Forty-nine patients (mean age, 78 years; range, 51-95) with acute VCF were followed up for almost 2 years. Significant pain relief was noted in 22 of 35 patients (63%) at 6 months and in 25 of 36 (69%) at 23 months. In patients with persisting pain at 23 months (mean VAS 6.4), some decrease in VAS was apparent at 6 months but not in the 6-23 months interval. No predictors for significant pain relief could be identified. Patients with significant pain relief used less pain medication and had less physical therapy.
In most patients with an acute VCF, pain decreases significantly with conservative therapy, predominantly in the first 6 months. However, almost 2 years after an acute VCF, a third of patients still had severe pain necessitating pain medication and physical therapy in the majority. No predictors for transition from acute to chronic pain could be identified.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) is a minimally invasive surgical procedure indicated for treatment of painful vertebral compression fractures. During BKP, cannulae are placed percutaneously into the vertebral body, allowing insertion of inflatable balloons. Inflating the balloons partially restores vertebral body height, compacts the bone and creates a cavity for placement of bone cement after balloon removal. Placement of the cement reduces and stabilizes the fracture. BKP differs from vertebroplasty in that it aims to restore vertebral height and reduce kyphotic deformity. Case reports and observational studies have consistently shown that BKP significantly reduces pain, increases mobility and functional capacity and improves quality of life for up to 3 years. Clinically significant adverse events have been rarely reported. These findings were confirmed in randomized and nonrandomized prospective controlled studies. The objective of this review is to describe the surgical procedures involved in BKP and to review the evidence supporting its use.Expert Review of Medical Devices 07/2012; 9(4):423-36. · 2.43 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Dynamic radiographs are recommended to investigate non-healing evidence such as the dynamic mobility or intravertebral clefts in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, it is difficult to examine standing flexion and extension lateral radiographs due to severe pain. The use of prone cross-table lateral radiographs (PrLRs) as a diagnostic tool has never been proposed to our knowledge. The purpose of this study is to clarify the usefulness of PrLRs in diagnosis and treatment of VCFs. We reviewed 62 VCF patients examined with PrLRs between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011. To compare the degree of pain provoked between standing extension lateral radiographs (StLRs) and PrLRs, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores were assessed and compared by a paired t-test. Vertebroplasty was done for 40 patients and kyphoplasty was done for 9 patients with routine manners. To assess the degree of postural reduction, vertebral wedge angles (VWA) and vertebral height ratios (VHR) were calculated by using preoperative StLRs, PrLRs, and postoperative lateral radiographs. Two variables derived from changes in VWA and VHR between preoperative and postoperative radiographs were compared by a paired t-test. The average NRS scores were 6.23 ± 1.67 in StLRs and 5.18 ± 1.47 in PrLRs. The degree of pain provocation was lower in using PrLRs than StLRs (p < 0.001). The average changes of VWA between preoperative and postoperative status were 5.24° ± 6.16° with PrLRs and 3.46° ± 3.47° with StLRs. The average changes of VHR were 0.248 ± 0.178 with PrLRs and 0.148 ± 0.161 with StLRs. The comparisons by two variables showed significant differences for both parameters (p = 0.021 and p < 0.001, respectively). The postoperative radiological status was reflected more precisely when using PrLRs than StLRs. In comparison with StLR, the PrLR was more accurate in predicting the degree of restoration of postoperative vertebral heights and wedge angles, and provoked less pain during examination. The PrLR could be a useful diagnostic tool to detect intravertebral cleft or intravertebral dynamic instability.Clinics in orthopedic surgery 09/2013; 5(3):195-201.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Little is known about the natural course of pain from vertebral compression fractures (VCF). In this study we evaluated the pain course in conservatively treated patients with back pain and a VCF on the spine radiograph. Between May 2007 and November 2008, 169 patients with back pain referred by the general practitioner for spine radiographs and with a VCF were requested to participate in this follow-up study. Base line questionnaires about visual analogue scale (VAS) score, type of treatment and use of osteoporosis medication were filled in by 82 patients. Questionnaires were repeated at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6 and 12 months. Significant pain relief was defined as a decrease in VAS score of 50 % or more from baseline. At baseline, mean VAS score in 82 patients was 6.9 (SD 2.0). Significant pain relief at 12 months was reported by 44 patients (54 %) while in 38 patients (46 %) pain relief was insufficient. No predictors for pain relief could be identified. Patients with insufficient pain relief at 12 months used significantly more analgesics and in these patients physiotherapy did better than other types of therapy. More than half of conservatively treated patients with back pain and VCF had sufficient pain relief at 12 months with most pain decrease in the first 3 months. However, a substantial proportion of patients still reported disabling pain. There were no predictors for the development of chronic pain. Patients with continuing pain ≥3 months after diagnosis of VCF may be candidates for vertebroplasty.Skeletal Radiology 10/2013; · 1.74 Impact Factor
Treatment of osteoporotic
vertebral compression fractures
Caroline A.H. Klazen
Thesis, University Utrecht
© C.A.H. Klazen, 2010
The copyright of the articles that have been published or accepted for publication
has been transferred to the respective Journals.
Printed by Gildeprint drukkerijen, Enschede, The Netherlands
Dr. M. Sluzewski
Karin van Rijnbach
Publication of this thesis was financially supported by:
Raad van Bestuur Medisch Spectrum Twente
Maatschap Radiologie Medisch Spectrum Twente
Treatment of osteoporotic
vertebral compression fractures
Behandeling van osteoporotische wervelfracturen
(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit Utrecht
op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. J.C. Stoof
ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties
in het openbaar te verdedigen
op vrijdag 12 november 2010 des middags te 2.30 uur
Caroline A. H. Klazen
geboren op 7 april 1977 te Berkel-Enschot
Prof. dr. W.P.Th.M. Mali
Prof. dr. J. de Vries
Dr. P.N.M. Lohle
Dr. H.J.J. Verhaar
The research described in this thesis was supported by a grant from the Netherlands
Organisation of Health Research and Development (ZonMW) and COOK Medical
General introduction 7
Clinical course of pain in acute, osteoporotic, vertebral
JVIR 2010; 21:1405-09
Chapter 3 VERTOS II: Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative
therapy in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral
compression fractures; rationale, objectives and design of
a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Trials 2007; 8: 33.
Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute,
osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II):
an open-label randomised trial.
Lancet 2010; 376: 1085-1092
Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Is Not a Risk Factor for New
Osteoporotic Compression Fractures: Results from VERTOS II.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31:1447–50
Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Pulmonary Cement
Embolism: Results from VERTOS II
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31:1451–53
Postprocedural CT for perivertebral cement leakage in
percutaneous vertebroplasty is not necessary—results
from VERTOS II
Neuroradiology 2010 May 5 (Epub ahead of print)
Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Procedural Pain
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31:830-1
General Discussion 107
Chapter 10 Summary
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures
Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) following osteoporosis are common in the
elderly population with an estimated 1.4 million clinically new VCFs worldwide
annually 1. About one third of new VCFs come to medical attention, suggesting
that most VCFs are either asymptomatic or with tolerable symptoms 2. Patients
with an acute VCF can present with severe back pain that can last for weeks to
months. The percentage of patients with chronic pain due to an osteoporotic
VCF assumed in literature is 10%-20%3, 4. However, valid evidence is lacking. In
Chapter 2 we prospectively determined the natural course of pain in patients
with conservatively treated acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.
Indications and timing of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) may depend on the
natural course of an osteoporotic VCF
Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures
Differential diagnosis of pain from an osteoporotic VCF includes myalgia,
degenerative disease and a herniated disc. Anamnesis, physical examination
and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the spine are needed to differentiate
between these causes. Pain due to an osteoporotic VCF is mostly a focal, sharp
pain at the level of the VCF and at adjacent regions, typical during movement
and on physical exercise. A herniated disc typically presents with radiculair pain.
A VCF can be simply diagnosed on a plain spine radiograph. However, MRI is
needed to discriminate between old, healed VCFs and subacute, non-healed VCFs.
In non-healed VCFs bone edema is present in the vertebral body 5. When MRI is
contraindicated, a bone scintigram should be performed to demonstrate activity
in the vertebral body and the number of vertebral bodies that are involved6.
Without a recent MRI or bone scintigram, it is impossible to demonstrate that the
vertebral compression fracture is the cause of pain.
Treatment of osteoporotic VCFs is treatment of pain. Until recently, bed rest,
analgesia, cast and physical support were the only treatment options for painful
VCFs. Bed rest may result in loss of bone density and muscle mass, while braces
are often poorly tolerated. In general, osteoporotic VCFs heal within 6-8 weeks.
However, some patients develop invalidating chronic pain despite conservative
treatment. For these patients, PV was introduced as an adjunct treatment of pain.
The injected bone cement agglutinates the microfractures in the vertebral body
and as such provides immediate and sustained pain relief.
To prevent new fractures in patients with osteoporosis, adjuvant biphosphonate
medication is important. The risk of a second osteoporotic VCF within the first
year after a VCF is about 20% 7. This risk increases with the number and severity of
pre-existing osteoporotic VCFs. Bisphosphonates reduce this proportion almost
by half 8
In 1984 PV was developed in France for the treatment of painful aggressive
vertebral angioma 9. In the following years the indication for PV was expanded to
vertebral fractures caused by osteoporosis, trauma, malignant or benign vertebral
tumors and vertebral osteonecrosis. Presently, PV is most frequently performed to
treat patients with painful osteoporotic VCFs.
Figure 1. MRI with bone edema of Th10 and Th9.
PV is performed in an angiography suite on a single or biplane angiographic
system (Figure 1). Local anaesthesia is infiltrated from the skin to the periosteum of
the targeted pedicle. Some patients receive additional intravenous fentanyl during
the procedure. Pain management during PV is discussed in Chapter 8. Two 11 or
13 Gauge bone biopsy needles are placed transpedicular in the fractured vertebral
body. Polymethylmetacrylate bone cement is injected through the bone biopsy
needles under continuous fluoroscopic monitoring to timely identify local cement
leakage and cement migration into the venous system towards the lungs. Patients
can be mobilized several hours after the procedure. Post procedural care consists
of physiotherapy, osteoporosis medication and additional pain medication if
Clinical results of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty
Since its introduction, this minimally invasive technique has received widespread
recognition with effective pain reduction both on short- and long-term 10-19.
A recent systematic literature review suggest effectiveness of PV in terms of pain
relief 19. However, the included prospective and retrospective follow-up studies do
not comprise control groups to compare with. The VERTOS I study randomized a
small group of patients with a subacute VCF and found immediate pain relief and
improved mobility on short-term follow-up 20. The study was terminated early due
to many crossovers.
Recently, two randomized studies using a sham control intervention reported
on clinical outcome one 21 and six 22 months after PV in patients with osteoporotic
VCF up to one year old. Both studies seem to indicate that PV and sham treatment
are equally effective. However, clinical interpretation of these studies is hampered
by including also patients with subacute and chronic fractures instead of only acute
fractures, lack of a control group without intervention, not using bone edema on
MRI as a consistent inclusion criterion, lack of specific physical examination and
some other methodological problems 23, 24.
We designed an open-label randomized controlled trial (VERTOS II) to clarify
whether PV has additional value compared with optimal pain treatment in a well
defined group of patients with acute VCFs. Study rationale, objectives and design
are described in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4 the main outcomes of the VERTOS II study
are analysed: pain relief, cost-effectiveness, quality of life and function.
Figure 2. PV Procedure
a. vertebral fracture L1. b.needle placement under fluoroscopic guidance. c. two transpedicular needle are placed. d. mixing
cement and filling 1cc syringes. e. syringes with cement are placed on the needle. f. cement injection. g. cement in the
vertebral body. h and i. CT of the treated vertebral body.
Adverse effects of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty
Controversy exists as to whether PV increases the risk for new VCFs during follow-
up. In Chapter 5 we assessed the incidence of new VCFs in patients with acute
VCFs randomized to PV and conservative therapy. In addition, we assessed further
height loss of the treated vertebral bodies with both therapies.
Cement leakage after PV outside the vertebral body is frequently detected.
Most leakages are into adjacent disks or segmental veins and most patients are
asymptomatic. However, radiculopathy, myelopathy and pulmonary cement
embolism (Figure 3) is occasionally reported 19. In Chapter 6 we assessed the true
incidence of pulmonary cement embolism during follow-up in a large proportion
of patients from the VERTOS II trial. We used baseline and follow-up CT to assess the
incidence, anatomical location, and clinical impact of perivertebral cement leakage
on short- and long-term in a large patient cohort; these results are described in
In the general discussion, Chapter 9, the overall findings are placed in a larger
perspective. A summary of the results of this thesis is presented in Chapter 10.
Figure 3. Pulmonary cement embolus in the left pulmonary artery.
Figure 4. Cement leakage in a segmental vein
1. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability
associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17(12):1726-1733.
2. 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(9041):1535-1541.
3. Ploeg WT, Veldhuizen AG, The B, Sietsma MS. Percutaneous vertebroplasty as a
treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review. Eur
Spine J 2006; 15(12):1749-1758.
4. Kwaliteitsinstituut van de Gezondheidszorg CBO. Tweede herziene richtlijn
osteoporose (in Dutch). Alphen aan de Rijn: Van Zuiden Communications 2002.
5. Pham T, zulay-Parrado J, Champsaur P, Chagnaud C, Legre V, Lafforgue P. “Occult”
osteoporotic vertebral fractures: vertebral body fractures without radiologic
collapse. Spine (Phila Pa 1976 ) 2005; 30(21):2430-2435.
6. Rico H, Merono E, Del OJ, Revilla M. The value of bone scintigraphy in the follow-up
of vertebral osteoporosis. Clin Rheumatol 1991; 10(3):298-301.
7. Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year
following a fracture. JAMA 2001; 285(3):320-323.
8. Lippuner K. Medical treatment of vertebral osteoporosis. Eur Spine J 2003; 12 Suppl
2:S132-41. Epub;%2003 Sep 17.:S132-S141.
9. Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le GD. [Preliminary note on the treatment of
vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty]. Neurochirurgie 1987;
10. Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ, Berlemann U. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a
systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine 2006; 31(17):1983-2001.
11. Zoarski GH, Snow P, Olan WJ et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic
compression fractures: quantitative prospective evaluation of long-term outcomes. J
Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13(2 Pt 1):139-148.
12. McGraw JK, Lippert JA, Minkus KD, Rami PM, Davis TM, Budzik RF. Prospective
evaluation of pain relief in 100 patients undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty:
results and follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13(9 Pt 1):883-886.
13. Legroux-Gerot I, Lormeau C, Boutry N, Cotten A, Duquesnoy B, Cortet B. Long-
term follow-up of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous
vertebroplasty. Clin Rheumatol 2004; 23(4):310-317.
14. Voormolen MH, Lohle PN, Lampmann LE et al. Prospective clinical follow-up after
percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral
compression fractures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17(8):1313-1320.
15. Anselmetti GC, Corrao G, Monica PD et al. Pain Relief Following Percutaneous
Vertebroplasty: Results of a Series of 283 Consecutive Patients Treated in a Single
Institution. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007; .
16. Evans AJ, Jensen ME, Kip KE et al. Vertebral compression fractures: pain reduction
and improvement in functional mobility after percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate
vertebroplasty retrospective report of 245 cases. Radiology 2003; 226(2):366-372.
17. Alvarez L, Alcaraz M, Perez-Higueras A et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: functional
improvement in patients with osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine 2006;
18. Perez-Higueras A, Alvarez L, Rossi RE, Quinones D, Al-Assir I. Percutaneous
vertebroplasty: long-term clinical and radiological outcome. Neuroradiology 2002;
19. Eck JC, Nachtigall D, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Comparison of vertebroplasty
and balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-
analysis of the literature. Spine J 2007; .
20. Voormolen MH, Mali WP, Lohle PN et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared
with optimal pain medication treatment: short-term clinical outcome of patients
with subacute or chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The
VERTOS study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28(3):555-560.
21. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for
osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361(6):569-579.
22. 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):557-568.
23. Clark W, Lyon S, Burnes J et al. Trials of Vertebroplasty for Vertebral Fractures. N Engl J
Med 2009; 361(21):2097-2100.
24. Gangi A, Clark WA. Have recent vertebroplasty trials changed the indications for
vertebroplasty? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2010; 33(4):677-680.