Impact of Cement Distribution on the Efficacy of Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation for Osteoporotic Fractures: Assessment with an MRI-Based Reference Marker.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume Pub Date : 2025-01-15 Epub Date: 2024-11-21 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.23.01289
Ruigang Jia, Dong Li, Peng He, Xin-Qiang Wang, Yunpeng Zhang, Jianling Bai, Jiwei Tian
{"title":"Impact of Cement Distribution on the Efficacy of Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation for Osteoporotic Fractures: Assessment with an MRI-Based Reference Marker.","authors":"Ruigang Jia, Dong Li, Peng He, Xin-Qiang Wang, Yunpeng Zhang, Jianling Bai, Jiwei Tian","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.23.01289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No studies have evaluated the impact of the cement distribution as classified on the basis of the fracture bone marrow edema area (FBMEA) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the efficacy of percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) for acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The clinical data of patients with acute, painful, single-level thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures were retrospectively analyzed. The bone cement distribution on the postoperative radiograph was divided into 4 types according to the distribution of the FBMEA on the preoperative MRI. The primary outcomes were the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Cement leakage, adjacent vertebral fractures (an important concern in complications after vertebroplasty and a subset of new fractures), and recollapse of the treated vertebra were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 128 patients, 80.5% of whom were female, were included and had follow-up for 24 months. The mean patient age (and standard deviation) was 74.2 ± 8.6 years. The cement distribution was classified as Type I in 18 patients, Type II in 26, Type III in 46, and Type IV in 38. At the primary time point (6 months), there was a significant difference in the ODI score favoring the Type-III and Type-IV groups compared with the Type-I and Type-II groups (adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI]: Type I versus Type II, -2.40 to 4.50; Type I versus Type III, 1.35 to 7.63; Type I versus Type IV, 1.27 to 7.92; Type II versus Type III, 0.67 to 6.21; Type II versus Type IV, 0.63 to 6.46; adjusted p < 0.0083), whereas no significant differences were found between the 4 groups in the VAS pain score. The Type-II and Type-IV groups had a higher incidence of cement leakage, and the Type-III and Type-IV groups had a lower incidence of vertebral recollapse.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An adequate distribution of bone cement is advantageous for functional improvement, short-term pain relief, and a lower rate of vertebral recollapse. The FBMEA appears to be a feasible reference marker for evaluating the performance of the PVA procedure.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":"107 2","pages":"196-207"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: No studies have evaluated the impact of the cement distribution as classified on the basis of the fracture bone marrow edema area (FBMEA) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the efficacy of percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) for acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

Methods: The clinical data of patients with acute, painful, single-level thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures were retrospectively analyzed. The bone cement distribution on the postoperative radiograph was divided into 4 types according to the distribution of the FBMEA on the preoperative MRI. The primary outcomes were the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Cement leakage, adjacent vertebral fractures (an important concern in complications after vertebroplasty and a subset of new fractures), and recollapse of the treated vertebra were also evaluated.

Results: A total of 128 patients, 80.5% of whom were female, were included and had follow-up for 24 months. The mean patient age (and standard deviation) was 74.2 ± 8.6 years. The cement distribution was classified as Type I in 18 patients, Type II in 26, Type III in 46, and Type IV in 38. At the primary time point (6 months), there was a significant difference in the ODI score favoring the Type-III and Type-IV groups compared with the Type-I and Type-II groups (adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI]: Type I versus Type II, -2.40 to 4.50; Type I versus Type III, 1.35 to 7.63; Type I versus Type IV, 1.27 to 7.92; Type II versus Type III, 0.67 to 6.21; Type II versus Type IV, 0.63 to 6.46; adjusted p < 0.0083), whereas no significant differences were found between the 4 groups in the VAS pain score. The Type-II and Type-IV groups had a higher incidence of cement leakage, and the Type-III and Type-IV groups had a lower incidence of vertebral recollapse.

Conclusions: An adequate distribution of bone cement is advantageous for functional improvement, short-term pain relief, and a lower rate of vertebral recollapse. The FBMEA appears to be a feasible reference marker for evaluating the performance of the PVA procedure.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骨水泥分布对经皮椎体增强治疗骨质疏松性骨折疗效的影响:基于mri参考标记的评估。
背景:目前还没有研究评估根据磁共振成像(MRI)中骨折骨髓水肿面积(FBMEA)分类的骨水泥分布对经皮椎体增强术(PVA)治疗急性骨质疏松性椎体骨折疗效的影响。方法:回顾性分析急性疼痛性单节段胸腰椎骨质疏松性骨折患者的临床资料。根据术前MRI上FBMEA的分布,将术后x线片上骨水泥分布分为4种类型。主要结果为术后疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分。我们还评估了骨水泥渗漏、相邻椎体骨折(椎体成形术后并发症和一部分新骨折的一个重要问题)以及治疗后椎体的再塌陷。结果:共纳入128例患者,其中80.5%为女性,随访24个月。患者平均年龄(及标准差)为74.2±8.6岁。18例患者的骨水泥分布为I型,26例为II型,46例为III型,38例为IV型。在主要时间点(6个月),与I型和II型组相比,iii型和iv型组的ODI评分有显著差异(调整95%置信区间[CI]: I型与II型,-2.40至4.50;I型vs III型,1.35 vs 7.63;I型vs IV型,1.27 vs 7.92;II型vs III型,0.67 ~ 6.21;II型vs . IV型,0.63 ~ 6.46;经校正p < 0.0083),而4组间VAS疼痛评分无显著差异。ii型和iv型组骨水泥渗漏发生率较高,iii型和iv型组椎体再塌陷发生率较低。结论:骨水泥的适当分布有利于功能改善、短期疼痛缓解和降低椎体再溃率。FBMEA似乎是评估PVA程序性能的可行参考指标。证据等级:治疗性III级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
期刊最新文献
Association Between Surgeon Volume and Patient Outcomes After Elective Patellofemoral Arthroplasty: A Population-Based Cohort Study Using Data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England. Sclerotic Bone Adversely Affects Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Distribution in Patients with Spinal Tuberculosis: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study. Comparison of Adductor Canal Block Before Versus After Total Knee Arthroplasty in Terms of Pain, Stress, and Functional Outcomes: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. Dysfunction of the Windlass Mechanism Is Associated with Hallux Rigidus: A Case-Control Study. What's Important (Arts & Humanities): The Bone Question.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1