Safety, effectiveness and predictors for early reoperation in therapeutic and prophylactic vertebroplasty: short-term results of a prospective case series of patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures

Abstract Introduction Vertebroplasty (VP) is a cost-efficient alternative to kyphoplasty; however, regarding safety and vertebral body (VB) height restoration, it is considered inferior. We assessed the safety and efficacy of VP in alleviating pain, improving quality of life (QoL) and restoring alignment. Methods In a prospective monocenter case series from May 2007 until July 2008, there were 1,408 vertebroplasties performed during 319 interventions in 306 patients with traumatic, lytic and osteoporotic fractures. The 249 interventions in 233 patients performed because of osteoporotic vertebral fractures were analyzed regarding demographics, treatment and radiographic details, pain alleviation (VAS), QoL improvement (NASS and EQ-5D), complications and predictors for new fractures requiring a reoperation. Results The osteoporotic patient sample consisted of 76.7% (179) females with a median age of 80 years. A total of 54 males had a median age of 77 years. On average, there were 1.8 VBs fractured and 5 VBs treated. The preoperative pain was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) and decreased from 54.9 to 40.4 pts after 2 months and 31.2 pts after 6 months. Accordingly, the QoL on the EQ-5D measure (−0.6 to 1) improved from 0.35 pts before surgery to 0.56 pts after 2 and to 0.68 pts after 6 months. The preoperative Beck Index (anterior height/posterior height) improved from a mean of 0.64 preoperative to 0.76 postoperative, remained stable at 2 months and slightly deteriorated to 0.72 at 6 months postoperatively. There were cement leakages in 26% of the fractured VBs and in 1.4% of the prophylactically cemented VBs; there were symptoms in 4.3%, and most of them were temporary hypotension and one pulmonary cement embolism that remained asymptomatic. The univariate regression model revealed a tendency for a reduced risk for new or refractures on radiographs (OR = 2.61, 95% CI 0.92–7.38, p = 0.12) and reoperations (OR = 2.9, 95% CI 0.94–8.949, p = 0.1) when prophylactic augmentation was performed. The final multivariate regression model revealed male patients to have an about three times higher refracture risk (radiographic) (OR = 2.78, p = 0.02) at 6 months after surgery. Patients with a lumbar index fracture had an about three to five times higher refracture/reoperation risk than patients with a thoracic (OR = 0.33/0.35, p = 0.009/0.01) or thoracolumbar (OR = 0.32/0.22, p = 0.099/0.01) index fracture. Conclusion If routinely used, VP is a safe and efficacious treatment option for osteoporotic vertebral fractures with regard to pain relief and improvement of the QoL. Even segmental realignment can be partially achieved with proper patient positioning. Certain patient or fracture characteristics increase the risk for early radiographic refractures or new fractures, or a reoperation; a consequent prophylactic augmentation showed protective tendencies, but the study was underpowered for a final conclusion.

Are there cervical spine findings at MR imaging that are specific to acute symptomatic whiplash injury? A prospective controlled study with four experienced blinded readers

To compare the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings in patients with acute whiplash injury with those in matched control subjects.

Partial tetraplegic syndrome as a complication of a mobilizing/manipulating procedure of the cervical spine in a man with Forestier's disease: a case report

Introduction Even if performed by qualified physical therapists, spinal manipulation and mobilization can cause adverse events. This holds true particularly for the cervical spine. In light of the substantial risks, the benefits of cervical spine manipulation may be outweighed by the possibility of further injury. Case presentation We present the case of a 56-year-old Caucasian man with Forestier's disease who went to see a physiotherapist to relieve his aching neck while on a holiday trip. Following the procedure, he was transferred to a local hospital with a partial tetraplegic syndrome due to a cervical 6/7 luxation fracture. Reportedly, the physiotherapist took neither a detailed history, nor adequate diagnostic measures. Conclusions This case highlights the potentially dangerous complications associated with cervical spine mobilization/manipulation. If guidelines concerning cervical spine mobilization and manipulation practices had been followed, this adverse event could have been avoided.