It is well recognized that patients can develop additional vertebral compression fractures (VCF) in an adjacent vertebra or at another vertebral level after successful vertebral augmentation. Factors such as the patient's bone mineral density, post procedure activity, and chronic corticosteroid use contribute to an increased risk of re-fracture or development of new fractures in the first three months after the initial procedure. However, there is a very small subgroup of patients that have unchanged or worse pain after the vertebral augmentation that may indicate continued progression of the treated compression fracture or a recurrent fracture at the previously treated level. This review examines the clinical findings, radiologic signs, and intraprocedural technical failures that may occur during the initial vertebral augmentation that can lead to a progressive fracture in a previously treated vertebra. Causes of failure of the initial vertebral augmentation procedure include inadequate or incomplete filling of the fracture site, the cement missing the actual fracture allowing continued osteoporotic compression, and persistent or worsened intravertebral fluid-filled clefts. The existence of an unfilled intravertebral fluid cleft on preoperative diagnostic studies is the most important indicator of risk for progression as is the later development of fluid at the bone cement interface.
This is a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients undergoing vertebroplasty and vertebral augmentation in an outpatient setting for high degree osteoporotic vertebral fractures or vertebra plana using consistently low volumes (less than 3 cc) of Cortoss® cement, rather than polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). The results in these patients demonstrate that it is both technically feasible to do vertebroplasty on these patients and using a low volume hydrophilic silica-based cement is effective in providing diffuse vertebral body fill with minimal complications. There was no increased risk of complications, such as cement leakage, displacement of bone fragments, or progression of the angulation. Specifically, with over a 24-month follow-up, the preoperative collapse or angulation did not worsen and none of the patients developed adjacent level fractures or required further surgery at the involved vertebral level.
The use of the Vertiflex® interspinous spacer is a recent minimal invasive procedure useful in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). It is used mostly by interventional pain physicians who can also perform the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD procedure). Previously when a patient had clinical symptomatic neurogenic claudication (NC) and radiologic findings of lumbar stenosis and had failed conservative treatment, the options were decompressive laminectomy, laminectomy with pedicle fixation at one or more levels or laminotomy combined with interlaminar stabilization (Coflex® implant). These procedures were performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. However, the majority of patients with LSS are elderly and have multiple comorbidities that can make open spinal surgery, even when limited to one level, an anesthesia risk as well as vulnerable to the risk associated with hospitalization and recovery after spine surgery. The minimally invasive approaches to interspinous stabilization make it possible to treat localized symptomatic stenosis in a broader group of patients that do not want or cannot, have general anesthesia or extensive lumbar surgery, especially in the prone position. This article examines the use of the Vertiflex® implant in an elderly population with significant comorbidities that underwent successful outpatient implantation at one or two levels. In addition, it serves to familiarize spine surgeons about the possibility of using more minimal approaches to treat LSS.
IntroductionIn reviewing a larger group of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), we found that the overall incidence of sacral insufficiency fractures (SIFs) is higher than commonly reported values. This is especially seen in patients with previous or concurrent lumbar VCFs and also in a subgroup that had lumbar stenosis or hip arthroplasty. The altered biomechanics due to associated lumbar stenosis or hip arthroplasty lead to increased mechanical stress on already weakened and deficient sacral alae, which are more vulnerable to osteoporotic weakening than other parts of the sacrum.Materials & methodsWe studied an overall population of patients with VCF seen clinically and separated the patients into the following groups: patients not previously treated, patients treated with vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty at one or more levels, and patients diagnosed with sacral fractures and treated with vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. We wanted to see if a pattern existed among the patients who had sacral symptoms, were diagnosed with sacral insufficiency fractures, and subsequently underwent sacroplasty.ResultsIn a review of 79 consecutive patients, over a 24-month period, with VCF who underwent surgical treatment, there were 10 patients who also had sacral insufficiency fractures. Four of the patients had sacral insufficiency fractures without VCF. None of the patients with sacral insufficiency fractures were on treatment for osteoporosis at the time of diagnosis. The following symptoms indicated SIF: lower sacral pain (n = 10), buttock pain (n = 7), lateral hip pain (n = 5), and groin pain radiating to the thigh (n = 4). The average time to diagnose SIF was two months after the onset of pain.ConclusionsSacral insufficiency fractures are a frequent cause of both acute and chronic pain; however, they are often missed by the majority of physicians. The frequency of undetected sacral fractures is high. This is due to a number of potential pitfalls, which include both subjective and objective reasons: the patient presenting with vague symptoms, the physician only performing a physical examination of the lumbar spine, and the physician ordering the inadequate standard lumbosacral radiographs, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as automatically relating the pain and other symptoms to preexisting MRI findings that are very commonly found in the elderly population. All of these pitfalls lead to SIFs being overlooked.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.