Vertebral fractures are the most common type of osteoporotic fracture and can increase morbidity and mortality. To date, the guidelines for managing osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) are limited in quantity and quality, and there is no gold standard treatment for these fractures. Conservative treatment is considered the primary treatment option for OVFs and includes pain relief through shortterm bed rest, analgesics, antiosteoporotic drugs, exercise, and braces. Studies on vertebral augmentation (VA) including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been widely reported, but there is still debate and controversy regarding the effectiveness of VA when compared with conservative treatment, and the routine use of VA for OVF is not supported by current evidence. Although most OVFs heal well, approximately 15%–35% of patients with unstable fractures, chronic intractable back pain, severely collapsed vertebra (leading to neurological deficits and kyphosis), or chronic pseudarthrosis frequently require surgery. Given that there is no single technique for optimizing surgical outcomes in OVFs, tailored surgical techniques are needed. Surgeons need to pay attention to advances in osteoporotic spinal surgery and should be open to novel thoughts and techniques. Prevention and management of osteoporosis is the key element in reducing the risk of subsequent OVFs. Bisphosphonates and teriparatide are mainstay drugs for improving fracture healing in OVF. The effects of bisphosphonates on fracture healing have not been clinically evaluated. The intermittent administration of teriparatide significantly enhanced spinal fusion and fracture healing and reduced mortality risk. Based on the current literature, there is still a lack of standard management strategies for OVF. There is a need for greater efforts through multimodal approaches including conservative treatment, surgery, osteoporosis treatment, and drugs that promote fracture healing to improve the quality of the guidelines.

Study Design: A retrospective case-control study. Objectives: The usefulness of a drain in spinal surgery has always been controversial. The purposes of this study were to determine the incidence of hematoma-related complications after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) without a drain and to evaluate its usefulness. Methods: We included 347 consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar disease who underwent single- or double-level PLIF. The participants were divided into 2 groups by the use of a drain or not; drain group and no-drain group. Results: In 165 cases of PLIF without drain, there was neither a newly developed neurological deficit due to hematoma nor reoperation for hematoma evacuation. In the no-drain group, there were 5 (3.0%) patients who suffered from surgical site infection (SSI), all superficial, and 17 (10.3%) patients who complained of postoperative transient recurred leg pain, all treated conservatively. Days from surgery to ambulation and length of hospital stay (LOS) of the no-drain group were faster than those of the drain group ( P < 0.001). In a multiple regression analysis, a drain insertion was found to have a significant effect on the delayed ambulation and increased LOS. No significant differences existed between the 2 groups in additional surgery for hematoma evacuation, or SSI. Conclusions: No hematoma-related neurological deficits or reoperations caused by epidural hematoma and SSI were observed in the no-drain group. The no-drain group did not show significantly more frequent postoperative complications than the drain use group, hence the routine insertion of a drain following PLIF should be reconsidered carefully.