Quantitative Comparison of Vertebral Structural Changes After Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Between Unilateral Extrapedicular Approach and Bilateral Transpedicular Approach Using Voxel-Based Morphometry.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurospine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.14245/ns.2346536.268
Tae Kim, Jinah Park, Jihoon Cho, Jin Seok Yi, Hong-Jae Lee
{"title":"Quantitative Comparison of Vertebral Structural Changes After Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Between Unilateral Extrapedicular Approach and Bilateral Transpedicular Approach Using Voxel-Based Morphometry.","authors":"Tae Kim, Jinah Park, Jihoon Cho, Jin Seok Yi, Hong-Jae Lee","doi":"10.14245/ns.2346536.268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare unilateral extrapedicular vertebroplasty (UEV) and bilateral transpedicular vertebroplasty (BTV) by quantitatively calculating the structural changes of fractured vertebral body after percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) using 3-dimensional voxel-based morphometry (VBM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We calculated bone cement volume (BCV); vertebral body volume (VBV); leaked intradiscal BCV; and spatial, symmetric, and even bone cement distribution (BCD) in and out of 222 vertebral bodies treated with 2 different PVPs using VBM and evaluated the incidence of subsequent vertebral compression fracture (SVCF). Statistical analyses were conducted to compare values between the 2 different PVPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Relative BCV, which is a potential risk factor for SVCF, was higher in the BTV group based on the data using VBM (0.22±0.03 vs. 0.29±0.03; p<0.001, t-test); however, the SVCF incidence between the 2 surgeries was not significantly different (UEV, 24.7%; BTV, 31%; p=0.046, chi-square test). Spatial, even, and symmetric BCD along the 3 axes was not significantly different between UEV and BTV using VBM (x, y, z-axis, p=0.893, p= 0.590, p=0.908 respectively, chi-square test).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Contrary to intuitive concerns, UEV can inject a sufficient and more optimal BCV than BTV. Additionally, it can inject bone cement spatially, symmetrically, and evenly well-distributed without an increased rate of intradiscal leakage and SVCF compared with BTV based on VBM. Therefore, UEV could be a superior alternative surgical method with similar clinical effectiveness and safety, considering the above results and the consensus that UEV is less invasive.</p>","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":" ","pages":"1287-1302"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10762408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2346536.268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare unilateral extrapedicular vertebroplasty (UEV) and bilateral transpedicular vertebroplasty (BTV) by quantitatively calculating the structural changes of fractured vertebral body after percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) using 3-dimensional voxel-based morphometry (VBM).

Methods: We calculated bone cement volume (BCV); vertebral body volume (VBV); leaked intradiscal BCV; and spatial, symmetric, and even bone cement distribution (BCD) in and out of 222 vertebral bodies treated with 2 different PVPs using VBM and evaluated the incidence of subsequent vertebral compression fracture (SVCF). Statistical analyses were conducted to compare values between the 2 different PVPs.

Results: Relative BCV, which is a potential risk factor for SVCF, was higher in the BTV group based on the data using VBM (0.22±0.03 vs. 0.29±0.03; p<0.001, t-test); however, the SVCF incidence between the 2 surgeries was not significantly different (UEV, 24.7%; BTV, 31%; p=0.046, chi-square test). Spatial, even, and symmetric BCD along the 3 axes was not significantly different between UEV and BTV using VBM (x, y, z-axis, p=0.893, p= 0.590, p=0.908 respectively, chi-square test).

Conclusion: Contrary to intuitive concerns, UEV can inject a sufficient and more optimal BCV than BTV. Additionally, it can inject bone cement spatially, symmetrically, and evenly well-distributed without an increased rate of intradiscal leakage and SVCF compared with BTV based on VBM. Therefore, UEV could be a superior alternative surgical method with similar clinical effectiveness and safety, considering the above results and the consensus that UEV is less invasive.

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
基于体素的形态计量学对经皮椎体成形术后单侧椎弓根外入路和双侧椎弓根内入路椎体结构变化的定量比较。
目的:应用三维体素形态计量学(VBM)定量计算经皮椎体成形术(PVP)后骨折椎体的结构变化,比较单侧椎弓根外椎体成形术和双侧经椎弓根椎体成形术。方法:计算骨水泥体积(BCV);椎体体积;椎间盘内BCV泄漏;以及使用VBM用2种不同PVP治疗的222个椎体中的空间、对称和均匀骨水泥分布(BCD),并评估随后椎体压缩性骨折(SVCF)的发生率。结果:相对BCV是SVCF的潜在危险因素,根据使用VBM的数据,BTV组的发病率更高(0.22±0.03 vs.0.29±0.03;结论:与直觉相反,UEV可以比BTV注入足够且更优化的BCV。此外,与基于VBM的BTV相比,它可以在空间上、对称地、均匀地均匀地注入骨水泥,而不会增加椎间盘内渗漏和SVCF的发生率cal的有效性和安全性,考虑到上述结果和UEV侵入性较小的共识。
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
Neurospine
Neurospine Multiple-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
93
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Self-Developed Mobility Augmented Reality System Versus Conventional X-rays for Spine Positioning in Intraspinal Tumor Surgery: A Case-Control Study. An Experimental Model for Fluid Dynamics and Pressures During Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy. Application of the "Klotski Technique" in Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament With En Bloc Type Dura Ossification. Artificial Intelligence Detection of Cervical Spine Fractures Using Convolutional Neural Network Models. Biomechanical Study of Atlanto-occipital Instability in Type II Basilar Invagination: A Finite Element Analysis.
×
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