Introduction New vertebral compression fractures (NVCFs) are adverse events after vertebral augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Predicting the risk of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) accurately after surgery is still a significant challenge for spinal surgeons. The aim of our study was to identify risk factors of NCVFs after vertebral augmentation of OVCFs and develop a nomogram. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with OVCFs who underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) or percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP). Patients were divided into the NVCFs group and control group, base on the patients with or without NVCFs within 2 years follow-up period after surgery. A training cohort of 403 patients diagnosed in our hospital from June 2014 to December 2016 was used for model development. The independent predictive factors of postoperative VCFs were determined by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression, univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. We provided a nomogram for predicting the risk of NVCFs based on independent predictive factors and used the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), calibration curve, and decision curve analyses (DCA) to evaluated the prognostic performance. After internal validation, the nomogram was further evaluated in a validation cohort of 159 patients included between January 2017 and June 2018. Results Of the 403 patients in the training cohort, 49(12.16%) were NVCFs at an average of 16.7 (1 to 23) months within the 2 years follow-up period. Of the 159 patients in the validation cohort, 17(10.69%) were NVCFs at an average of 8.7 (1 to 15) months within the 2 years follow-up period. In the training cohort, the proportions of elderly patients older than 80 years were 32.65 and 13.56% in the NVCFs and control group, respectively (p = 0.003). The percentages of patients with previous fracture history were 26.53 and 12.71% in the NVCFs and control group, respectively (p = 0.010). The volume of bone cement were 4.43 ± 0.88 mL and 4.02 ± 1.13 mL in the NVCFs and Control group, respectively (p = 0.014). The differences have statistical significance in the bone cement leakage, bone cement dispersion, contact with endplate, anti-osteoporotic treatment, post-op Cobb angle and Cobb angle restoration characteristics between the two groups. The model was established by multivariate logistic regression analysis to obtain independent predictors. In the training and validation cohort, the AUC of the nomogram were 0.882 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.824-0.940) and 0.869 (95% CI: 0.811-0.927), respectively. The C index of the nomogram was 0.886 in the training cohort and 0.893 in the validation cohort, demonstrating good discrimination. In the training and validation cohort, the optimal calibration curves demonstrated the coincidence between prediction and actual status, and the decision curve analysis demonstrated that the full model had the highest clinical net benefit across the entire range of threshold probabilities. Conclusion A nomogram for predicting NVCFs after vertebral augmentation was established and validated. For patients evaluated by this model with predictive high risk of developing postoperative VCFs, postoperative management strategies such as enhance osteoporosis-related health education and management should be considered.
Background Current findings suggest that percutaneous vertebroplasty(PVP) is a suitable therapeutic approach for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the differences in clinical efficacy and related complications between the two bone cement distribution modes. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of the patients with single-segment OVCFs who underwent bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty. Patients were divided into blocky and spongy group according to the type of postoperative bone cement distribution. Clinical efficacy and related complications was compared between the two bone cement distribution modes on 24 h after the operation and last follow-up. Results A total of 329 patients with an average follow up time of 17.54 months were included. The blocky group included 131 patients, 109 females(83.2 %) and 22 males(16.8 %) with a median age of 72.69 ± 7.76 years, while the Spongy group was made up of 198 patients, 38 females(19.2 %) and 160 males(80.8 %) with a median age of 71.11 ± 7.36 years. The VAS and ODI after operation improved significantly in both two groups. The VAS and ODI in the spongy group was significantly lower than that in the blocky group, 24 h postoperatively, and at the last follow-up. There were 42 cases (12.8 %) of adjacent vertebral fractures, 26 cases (19.8 %) in the blocky group and 16 cases (8.1 %) in the spongy group. There were 57 cases (17.3 %) of bone cement leakage, 18 cases (13.7 %) in blocky group and 39 cases (19.7 %) in the spongy group. At 24 h postoperatively and at the last follow-up, local kyphosis and anterior vertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups, but gradually decreased over time, and the degree of correction was significantly higher in the spongy group than in the block group. The change of local kyphosis and loss of vertebral body height were also less severe in the spongy group at the last follow-up. Conclusions Compared with blocky group, spongy group can better maintain the height of the vertebral body, correct local kyphosis, reduce the risk of the vertebral body recompression, long-term pain and restore functions.
Introduction: Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an effective treatment for lumbar degenerative diseases. Cage subsidence (CS) contitutes one of the most common postoperative complications. Many risk factors for CS after LIF have been reported in some studies. However, controversies still exist. The objective of this study will be to summarize data on the prevalence and risk factors of CS after LIF. Methods and analysis: Our study present a protocol that conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors for CS after LIF. Two reviewers retrieved the relevant articles using the 5 databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) from inception to May 31st, 2021. Primary outcome will be the prevalence of CS after LIF. Second outcomes include the risk factors associated with postoperative CS and clinical outcomes associated with postoperative CS. Three reviewers will screen citation titles and abstracts and evaluated full-text of each potentially relevant citation, and then extracted the data using a data extraction form. Any discrepancies in decisions between reviewers will be resolved through discussion. We assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The aim of the extra analysis is to explore the explanations of the heterogeneity (age, gender, race, year of publication, type of study and surgical procedure). Publication bias will be assessed by Begg test, Egger test and funnel plots. Ethics and dissemination: No primary data will be collected and individual patient information and endangering participant rights, thus ethics approval is not required. Findings will be reported through publication and media. Protocol registration number: PROSPERO CRD42021257981 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#joinuppage ).
Background:Current findings suggest that percutaneous vertebroplasty(PVP) is a suitable therapeutic approach for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs).The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the differences in clinical efficacy and related complications between the two bone cement distribution modes. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of the patients with single-segment OVCFs who underwent bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty.Patients were divided into blocky and spongy group according to the type of postoperative bone cement distribution. Clinical efficacy and related complications was compared between the two bone cement distribution modes on 24h after the operation and last follow-up.RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 17.54 months. The VAS and ODI after operation improved significantly in both two groups. The VAS and ODI in the spongy group was significantly lower than that in the blocky group, 24h postoperatively, and at the last follow-up. There were 42 cases (12.8%) of adjacent vertebral fractures, 26 cases (19.8%) in the blocky group and 16 cases (8.1%) in the spongy group. There were 57 cases (17.3%) of bone cement leakage, 18 cases (13.7%) in blocky group and 39 cases (19.7%) in the spongy group. At 24 hour postoperatively and at the last follow-up, local kyphosis and anterior vertebral height were significantly corrected in both groups, but gradually decreased over time, and the degree of correction was significantly higher in the spongy group than in the block group. Loss of local kyphosis and loss of vertebral body height were also less severe in the spongy group at the last follow-up.Conclusions: Compared with blocky group, spongy group can better maintain the height of the vertebral body, correct local kyphosis, reduce the risk of the vertebral body recompression, long-term pain and restore functions.
Background: Current findings suggest that percutaneous vertebroplasty(PVP) is a suitable therapeutic approach for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). However, a significant minority of patients still experience residual back pain after PVP. The present retrospective study was designed to determine the risk factors for residual back pain after PVP and provides a nomogram for predicting the residual back pain after PVP.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with single-segment OVCFs who underwent bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty. Patients were divided into group N and group R according to the postoperative VAS score. Group R is described as the VAS score of residual back pain≥4. Pre- and post-operative factors that may affect back pain relief were evaluated between two groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify risk factors affecting residual back pain after PVP. We provided a nomogram for predicting the residual back pain and used the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), concordance index (c-index), calibration curve, and decision curve analyses(DCA) to evaluated the prognostic performance.Results: Among 268 patients treated with PVP, 37(13.81%) patients were classified postoperative residual back pain.The results of the multivariate logistical regression analysis showed that the presence of an intravertebral vacuum cleft(IVC)(OR 3.790, P=0.026), posterior fascia oedema(OR 3.965, P=0.022), server paraspinal muscle degeneration(OR 5.804, P=0.01; OR 13.767,P<0.001) and blocky cement distribution(OR 2.225, P=0.041) were independent risk factors for residual back pain after PVP. The AUC value was 0.780, suggesting that the predictive ability was excellent. The prediction nomogram presented good discrimination, with a C-index of 0.774(0.696~0.852), and was validated to be 0.752 through bootstrapping validation. The calibration curve of the nomogram demonstrated a good consistency between the probabilities predicted by the nomogram and the actual probabilities. The nomogram showed net benefits in the range from 0.06 to 0.66 in DCA.Conclusions: The presence of IVC, posterior fascia oedema, blocky cement distribution and severe paraspinal muscle degeneration were significant risk factors for residual back pain after PVP for OVCFs. Patients with OVCFs after PVP who have these risk factors should be carefully monitored for the possible development of residual back pain. We provide a nomogram for predicting the residual back pain after PVP.
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.