ObjectiveTo investigate the classification and treatment strategies of symptomatic severe osteoporotic vertebral fracture and collapse. MethodsBetween August 2010 and January 2014, 42 patients with symptomatic severe osteoporotic vertebral fracture and collapse were treated, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. According to clinical symptom and imaging materials, 23 cases were classified as type I (local pain, limitation of motion, no neurological symptom, and no obvious deformity), 12 cases as type II (slight neurological symptom and kyphotic Cobb angle ≤ 30°), and 7 cases as type III (severe neurological symptom and kyphotic Cobb angle <30°). In 23 type I patients, 17 underwent percutaneous vertebral augmentation, 6 underwent posterior pedicle screw fixation strengthened with bone cement combined with percutaneous vertebral augmentation. In 12 type II patients, they were treated with local spinal decompression and internal fixation strengthened with bone cement. In 7 type III patients, 5 underwent posterior osteotomy, and 2 underwent one stage posterior approach of vertebral resection and reconstruction. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and local kyphotic Cobb angle were used to evaluate the neurological function. The complications were recorded. ResultsThe operation was successfully completed in all patients. Wound infection and ketoacidosis secondary to stress blood glucose rise occurred in 1 case of type III patients respectively, and were cured after corresponding treatment; primary healing of wound was obtained in the other patients. The patients were followed up from 6 to 36 months (mean, 11.6 months). The nerve function was improved in 17 cases, and micturition disability was observed in 2 cases. Asymptomatic cement leakage occurred in 13 cases (30.95%) (7 cases in type I, 4 cases in type II, and 2 cases in type III). No bone cement dislocation and internal fixation failure were found during follow-up. The VAS score, ODI, and the local kyphotic Cobb angle at 1 week and last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found between at 1 week and last follow-up (P>0.05). ConclusionIn order to improve the effectiveness and reduce the risk and complications of operation, individualized strategies should be performed according to different types of severe osteoporotic vertebral fracture and collapse.
Objective To measure the anatomical parameters related to lumbar unilateral transverse process-pedicle percutaneous vertebral augmentation, and to assess the feasibility and safety of the approach. Methods A total of 300 lumbar vertebral bodies of 60 patients were randomly selected, and vertebral augmentation were simulated 600 times on X-ray and CT image with unilateral conventional transpedicle approach (control group) and unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach (experimental group). The distance between the entry point and the midline of the vertebral body, the puncture inner inclination angle, the safe range of the puncture inner inclination angle, and the puncture success rate were measured and compared between the left and right with the same approach, and between the two approaches. Results The distance between the entry point and the midline gradually increased from L1 to L5 on both sides in the 2 groups. In the control group, the right sides distance of L1 and L2 was much longer than the left sides, and the right sides distance of L1, L2, and L5 was much longer than the left sides in the experimental group (P<0.05); the distance of the experimental group between the entry point and the midline was much longer than the control group regardless of the sides from L1 to L5 (P<0.05). In the experimental group, the right maximum inner inclination angle from L1 to L5, the right middle inner inclination angle from L1 to L5, and the right minimum inner inclination angle from L1, L2, L4, L5 were significantly larger than the left side (P<0.05). The maximum inner inclination angle and the middle inner inclination angle presented increased tendency, the tendency of minimum inner inclination angle was ambiguous, however, the all inner inclination angles were much larger than those in control group among the different lumbar levels(P<0.05). There was no significant difference of the safe range of the puncture inner inclination angle between 2 sides in 2 groups at L1 to L5 (P<0.05); the safe range angle in experimental group at L5 was significantly smaller than that in control group (P<0.05). The difference in total puncture success rate of all lumbar levels was significant between the experimental group and the control group (χ2=172.252, P=0.000); the puncture success rates of the experimental group were higher than those in the control group form L1 to L4 (P<0.05), but no significant difference was found in the puncture success rate between 2 groups at L5 (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with the unilateral conventional transpedicle approach, the entry point of the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach is localized outside, the puncture inclination angle is wider, and the puncture success rate is higher. It shows that the unilateral transverse process-pedicle approach is safer and more reliable than the unilateral conventional transpedicle approach.
ObjectiveTo compare the refracture risk between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and to explore the risk factors related to refracture.MethodsRetrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients who received percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and formed sandwich vertebrae between April 2015 and October 2019. Of them, 115 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 27 males and 88 females with an average age of 73.9 years (range, 53-89 years). Univariate analysis was performed to analyzed the patients’ general data, vertebral augmentation related indexes, and sandwich vertebrae related indexes. Survival analysis was performed for all untreated vertebrae at T4-L5 of the included patients at the vertebra-specific level, and risk curves of refracture probability of untreated vertebrae between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae were compared. Cox’s proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze risk factors for refracture.ResultsThe 115 patients were followed up 12.6-65.9 months (mean, 36.2 months). Thirty-seven refractures involving 51 vertebral bodies occurred in 31 patients. The refracture rate of 27.0% (31/115) in patients with sandwich vertebrae was significantly higher than that of 15.2% (187/1228) in all patients who received PVA during the same period (χ2=10.638, P=0.001). Univariate analysis results showed that there was a significant difference in the number of augmented vertebrae between patients with and without refractures (Z=0.870, P=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, whether had clear causes of fracture, whether had dual energy X-ray absorptiometry testing, whether the sandwich vertebra generated through the same PVA, puncture method, method of PVA, number of PVA procedures, number of vertebrae with old fracture, whether complicated with spinal deformity, bone cement distribution, and kyphosis angle of sandwich vertebral area (P>0.05). Among the 1 293 untreated vertebrae, there were 136 sandwich vertebrae and 286 ordinary adjacent vertebrae. The refracture rate of sandwich vertebrae was 11.3% which was higher than that of ordinary adjacent vertebrae (6.3%)(χ2=4.668, P=0.031). The 1- and 5-year fracture-free probabilities were 0.90 and 0.87 for the sandwich vertebrae, and 0.95 and 0.93 for the ordinary adjacent vertebrae, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two risk curves of refracture (χ2=4.823, P=0.028). Cox’s proportional hazards regression model analysis results showed that the sandwich vertebrae, thoracolumbar location, the number of the augmented vertebrae, and the unilateral puncture were significant risk factors for refracture (P<0.05).ConclusionThe sandwich vertebrae has a higher risk of refracture when compared with the ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and its 1- and 5-year fracture-free probabilities are lower than those of the ordinary adjacent vertebrae. However, the 5-year fracture-free probability of sandwich vertebrae is still 0.87, so prophylactic enhancement is not recommended for all sandwich vertebrae. In addition, the sandwich vertebrae, thoracolumbar location, the number of the augmented vertebrae, and the unilateral puncture were important risk factors for refracture.