Anterior thoracolumbar column reconstruction with the vertebral body stent—safety and efficacy

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess safety and efficacy of vertebral body stenting (VBS) by analyzing (1) radiographic outcome, (2) clinical outcome, and (3) perioperative complications in patients with vertebral compression fractures treated with VBS at minimum 6-month follow-up. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, 78 patients (61 ± 14 [21–90] years; 67% female) who have received a vertebral body stent due to a traumatic, osteoporotic or metastatic thoracolumbar compression fracture at our hospital between 2012 and 2020 were included. Median follow-up was 0.9 years with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Radiographic and clinical outcome was analyzed directly, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months postoperatively, and at last follow-up. Results Anterior vertebral body height of all patients improved significantly by mean 6.2 ± 4.8 mm directly postoperatively (p < 0.0001) and remained at 4.3 ± 5.1 mm at last follow-up compared to preoperatively (p < 0.0001). The fracture kyphosis angle of all patients improved significantly by mean 5.8 ± 6.9 degrees directly postoperatively (p < 0.0001) and remained at mean 4.9 ± 6.9 degrees at last follow-up compared to preoperatively (p < 0.0001). The segmental kyphosis angle of all patients improved significantly by mean 7.1 ± 7.6 degrees directly postoperatively (p < 0.0001) and remained at mean 2.8 ± 7.8 degrees at last follow-up compared to preoperatively (p = 0.03). Back pain was ameliorated from a preoperative median Numeric Rating Scale value of 6.5 to 3.0 directly postoperatively and further bettered to 1.0 six months postoperatively (p = 0.0001). Revision surgery was required in one patient after 0.4 years. Conclusion Vertebral body stenting is a safe and effective treatment option for osteoporotic, traumatic and metastatic compression fractures.

Intraoperative complications of vertebral body stenting system

“…VBS is less able to tolerate errors is versus BKP, especially in the presence of an immobile fracture, and/or a sclerotic zone that may contribute to incomplete stent expansion. [ 1 ] Furthermore, if two stents interfere with each other, they are not able to “expand sufficiently.”[ 3 ] Here, an unilateral “tumbling stent,” attributed to insufficient stent expansion occurred, resulted in insufficient filling of the right-sided stent. The left-sided stent was sufficiently filled, but the construct required a secondary posterior instrumented fusion.…”