Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2019; 86(1):39-45 | DOI: 10.55095/achot2019/006

Assessment of Reduction Abilities of an Expandable Stent in Treating Osteoporosis-Related Fractures of Th/L (Thoracolumbar) SpineOriginal papers

M. KELBL1,2, J. KOČIŠ1,2,*, T. KOČIŠ3, R. VESELÝ1,2, L. PAŠA1,2
1 Klinika traumatologie Lékařské fakulty Masarykovy Univerzity v Brně
2 Úrazová nemocnice v Brně
3 Ortopedické oddělení Nemocnice Sv. Zdislavy, Mostiště

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The method of stabilising the osteoporosis-related spinal fractures using an expandable stent (vertebral body stent - VBS) and bone cement is generally accepted for its minimal invasiveness, a low risk of complications and confirmed analgesic effect. The efficiency of reduction of a compressed vertebra is, however, still discussed in the literature. Our hypothesis was that the stent expansion in the vertebral body can achieve a statistically significant reduction in the anterior, middle and posterior part of the vertebra.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
The patients in whom the VBS technique was used to treat an osteoporosis-related fracture of Th/L spine in the period 2010-2014 were included in the study, namely 29 patients with 31 treated fractures. The following radiographic parameters were monitored - anterior, middle and posterior vertebral body height, kyphotic angle between the upper and lower endplates of the vertebral body. Also, the radiation burden, painfulness according to VAS score and occurrence of complications were monitored. The minimum follow-up was 12 months.

RESULTS:
The mean height of the anterior part of the vertebral body before the surgery, on the 1st postoperative day and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months was 23.5/25.4/23.9/23.6/23.6 mm respectively. The mean height of the middle part of the vertebral body at the same intervals was 17.9/24.0/23.4/22.9/22.9/22.9 mm. The mean height of the posterior part of the vertebral body was 29.6/29.8/29.4/29.3/29.2/29.2 mm. The kyphotic angle between the endplates of the vertebral body was 8.6/5.3/7.4/7.9/8.0/8.0°. The mean VAS values were 8.2/2.4/2.0/1.9/1.8/1.7. The mean duration of surgery was 54.3 minutes. The mean time of fluoroscopy was 33.4 s. The mean radiation dose was 443.1 cGycm2. The observed complications comprised 2 cases of dilatation balloon rupture, one case of a failure to expand the stents in a healed fracture due to incorrect indication. In total, four cases of cement leakage outside the vertebral body were reported, always with no clinical response.

DISCUSSION:
All the authors agree that the method brings immediate analgesic effect, comparable to kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty. In our cohort, good reduction ability of the implant in the middle part of the vertebral body was confirmed. This has been confirmed also by other authors. Nonetheless, at a longer time interval the loss of correction was observed, which was reported only by Hartmann (5). The other authors mostly did not take into account the longer-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:
The hypothesis that the stent is capable of a statistically significant reduction in the anterior, middle and posterior portion of the vertebral body was only partially confirmed. A statistically significant reduction was seen only in the middle portion of the vertebral body. In the anterior portion of the vertebral body the reduction was demonstrable only immediately after the surgery, while the later follow-up checks revealed the loss of correction. The statistically significant improvement of the kyphotic angle between the endplates of the injured vertebra was also seen only on the first postoperative radiographs and at later follow-up checks the improvement was no more significant. The change in the height of the posterior portion of the vertebral body was not statistically significant at any of the follow-up intervals.

Keywords: osteoporosis, vertebral fracture, vertebral body augmentation, stentoplasty, vertebral body stent

Published: February 1, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
KELBL M, KOČIŠ J, KOČIŠ T, VESELÝ R, PAŠA L. Assessment of Reduction Abilities of an Expandable Stent in Treating Osteoporosis-Related Fractures of Th/L (Thoracolumbar) Spine. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2019;86(1):39-45. doi: 10.55095/achot2019/006. PubMed PMID: 30843512.
Download citation

References

  1. Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, O'Fallon WM, Melton LJ. Incidence of clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota, 1985-1989. J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7:221-227. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Diel P, Röder C, Perler G, Vordemvenne T, Scholz M, Kandziora F, Fürderer S, Eiskjaer S, Maestretti G, Rotter R, Benneker LM, Heini PF. Radiographic and safety details of vertebral body stenting: results from a multicenter chart review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:233. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Disch AC, Schmoelz W. Cement augmentation in a thoracolumbar fracture model: reduction and stability after balloon kyphoplasty versus vertebral body stenting. Spine Phila Pa 1976. 2014;39:E1147-1153. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Fürderer S, Anders M, Schwindling B, Salick M, Düber C, Wenda K, Urban R, Glück M, Eysel P. Vertebral body stenting. Eine Methode zur Reposition und Augmentation von Wirbelkörperkompressionsfrakturen. Orthopäde. 2002;31:356-361. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Hartmann F, Griese M, Dietz SO, Kuhn S, Rommens PM, Gercek E. Two-year results of vertebral body stenting for the treatment of traumatic incomplete burst fractures. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24:161-166. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Heini PF, Teuscher R. Vertebral body stenting / stentoplasty. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13658. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ, Berlemann U. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:1983-2001. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Klezl Z, Majeed H, Bommireddy R, John J. Early results after vertebral body stenting for fractures of the anterior column of the thoracolumbar spine. Injury. 2011;42:1038-1042. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Li L, Sun T, Liu Z, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Cai Y, Wang H. Comparison of unipedicular and bipedicular percutaneous kyphoplasty for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126:3956-3961. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C, Hanley DA, Barton I, Broy SB, Licata A, Benhamou L, Geusens P, Flowers K, Stracke H, Seeman E. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA. 2001;285:320-323. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Matějka J, Zeman J, Belatka J, Matějka T, Nepraš P. Augmentace obratlového těla vertebrálním stentem. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2011;78:442-446. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Mavrogenis AF, Papadopoulos EC, Starantzis K, Korres DS, Papagelopoulos PJ. Posterior decompression and stabilization, and surgical vertebroplasty with the vertebral body stenting for metastatic vertebral and epidural cauda equina compression. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:253-258. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Muto M, Greco B, Setola F, Vassallo P, Ambrosanio G, Guarnieri G. Vertebral body stenting system for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: follow-up at 12 months in 20 cases. Neuroradiol J. 2011;24:610-619. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Pua U, Quek LH, Ng LC. Central stentoplasty: technique for unipedicular single midline vertebral body stent implantation. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2014;37:810-814. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Rebolledo BJ, Gladnick BP, Unnanuntana A, Nguyen JT, Kepler CK, Lane JM. Comparison of unipedicular and bipedicular balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomised study. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:401-406. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Rotter R, Martin H, Fuerderer S, Gabl M, Roeder C, Heini P, Mittlmeier T. Vertebral body stenting: a new method for vertebral augmentation versus kyphoplasty. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:916-923. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Sato K, Kikuchi S, Yonezawa T. In vivo intradiscal pressure measurement in healthy individuals and in patients with ongoing back problems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:2468-2474. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Spiegl UJA, Beisse R, Hauck S, Grillhösl A, Bühren V. Value of MRI imaging prior to a kyphoplasty for osteoporotic insufficiency fractures. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:1287-1292. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Thaler M, Lechner R, Nogler M, Gstöttner M, Bach C. Surgical procedure and initial radiographic results of a new augmentation technique for vertebral compression fractures. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1608-1616. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Wang D, Zheng S, Liu A, Xu J, Du X, Wang Y, Wang L. The role of minimally invasive vertebral body stent on reduction of the deflation effect after kyphoplasty: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa). 2018;43:E341-E347. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Werner CM, Osterhoff G, Schlickeiser J, Jenni R, Wanner GA, Ossendorf C, Simmen HP. Vertebral body stenting versus kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:577-584. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Wilke HJ, Neef P, Caimi M, Hoogland T, Claes LE. New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24:755-762. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...