Does vertebral augmentation lead to an increasing incidence of adjacent vertebral failure? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Age- and gender-dependent impact of titanium vertebral augmentation implants combined with cementing on subsequent vertebral fracture incidence: A comparative study with cementing alone

PURPOSE

To compare vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP) with a titanium implantable vertebral augmentation device (TIVAD) in symptomatic subsequent vertebral compression fracture (SVCF) incidence among osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) patients stratified by age and sex.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study involved OVCF patients aged ≥ 50, who underwent KP with TIVAD or VP in our hospital from 2014 to 2019. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of KP with TIVAD and VP in patients stratified by age and sex.

RESULTS

The study included 472 patients (VP group: 303; TIVAD group: 169). SVCF incidence rates were 15.2% for VP group and 14.8% for TIVAD group (P = 0.87). In subgroup analysis, TIVAD group showed significantly lower SVCF incidence than VP group in women aged 50-70 (2.1% vs 14.3%; P = 0.03) and had significantly higher SVCF incidence than VP group in women aged > 70 (24.2% vs 13.1%; P = 0.02). In men, adjacent SVCF incidence was significantly lower in TIVAD group than VP group (0% vs 14.1%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Compared to VP, TIVAD is associated with lower symptomatic SVCF rate in men and younger women aged 50-70 but not in older women aged > 70. Age and gender may influence SVCF incidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Association between opportunistic vertebral bone density measurements and new vertebral fractures after percutaneous vertebral cementoplasty: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES

To study the relationship between opportunistic CT bone density measurements and the occurrence of new vertebral fractures after percutaneous vertebral cementoplasty (PVC) of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).

METHODS

A prospective analysis of retrospective data of 275 patients with OVCF treated by PVC between 2014 and 2019 with a clinico-radiological follow-up one year after treatment was conducted. Opportunistic bone density measurements were obtained at the trabecular bone of the L1 or an adjacent vertebra in Hounsfield units performed on the preoperative CT study. These density measurements values ​​were then compared between patients with and without new OCVF and in various population subgroups.

RESULTS

There were 275 patients included, with 53 (19%) presenting a new OCVF and 24 (9%) developing a fracture cascade. The median opportunistic density measurements ​​in patients with recurrent OCVF were lower than those without (median 52[40.5]) HU and 77[49] HU)(p < 0.00001). Among the patients with new OVCF the median opportunistic density measurements in patients with fracture cascades were also lower than those without (44 HU and 62 HU, respectively) (p < 0.0096). Patients with density measurements under 61 HU were 3.6 times more likely to present recurrent fractures and those with density under 54 HU were 9.8 times more likely to develop a fracture cascade. The 36 HU threshold yielded a high specificity (90-91%) for the prediction of recurrent fractures and fracture cascade but with low sensitivity (respectively 26% and 37%).

CONCLUSION

Low opportunistic vertebral density measurements are associated with a higher risk of OVCF and fracture cascades after PVC.

KEY POINTS

• Low opportunistic density measurements are associated with a higher risk of OVCF and fracture cascades after PVC. • Measuring bone density before performing a PVC could help predict the risk of new vertebral fracture after treatment • Patient management could be adapted according to bone density.

Effect of subsequent vertebral body fractures on the outcome after posterior stabilization of unstable geriatric fractures of the thoracolumbar spine

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was analyzing the effect of subsequent vertebral body fractures on the clinical outcome in geriatric patients with thoracolumbar fractures treated operatively.

METHODS

Retrospectively, all patients aged ≥ 60 with a fracture of the thoracolumbar spine included. Further inclusion parameters were acute and unstable fractures that were treated by posterior stabilization with a low to moderate loss of reduction of less than 10°. The minimal follow-up period was 18 months. Demographic data including the trauma mechanism, ASA score, and the treatment strategy were recorded. The following outcome parameters were analyzed: the ODI score, pain level, satisfaction level, SF 36 score as well as the radiologic outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Altogether, 73 patients were included (mean age: 72 years; 45 women). The majority of fractures consisted of incomplete or complete burst fractures (OF 3 + 4). The mean follow-up period was 46.6 months. Fourteen patients suffered from subsequent vertebral body fractures (19.2%). No trauma was recordable in 5 out of 6 patients; 42.8% of patients experienced a low-energy trauma (significant association: p < 0.01). There was a significant correlation between subsequent vertebral body fracture and female gender (p = 0.01) as well as the amount of loss of reduction (p = 0.02). Thereby, patients with subsequent vertebral fractures had significant worse clinical outcomes (ODI: 49.8 vs 16.6, p < 0.01; VAS pain: 5.0 vs 2.6, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patient with subsequent vertebral body fractures had significantly inferior clinical midterm outcome. The trauma mechanism correlated significantly with both the rate of subsequent vertebral body fractures and the outcome. Another risk factor is female gender.

Subsequent fractures after vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a meta-analysis

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) provides substantial benefit to patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF). However, the reoccurrence of vertebral fracture after VP is a major concern. The purpose of this study is to conduct a meta-analysis on the incidence of subsequent fractures after VP in patients with OVCF. PubMed and EMBASE were searched. In addition, we scrutinized the reference list of all relevant articles to supplement the database search. We included original articles reporting on new fracture rates after VP in OVCF patients. Subsequent fracture rates were pooled across studies using a random-effects meta-analysis. Thirty-nine studies with a total of 8047 participants from 12 countries were included in this meta-analysis. Patients' age ranged from 64.2 to 94.6 years (reported by 31 studies). The median follow-up was 21 months (36 studies). Pooled estimate for subsequent fractures after VP was 23.4% (95% CI, 19.8-27.2%; I² = 93.0%, p < 0.01). New fractures after VP in 54.6% of cases occurred in the vertebral bodies adjacent to the treated vertebra (95% CI, 49.0-60.1%; I² = 66.0%, p < 0.01). A significant proportion of patients undergoing VP for OVCF experience new fractures after treatment, most of which are developed in the vertebral bodies adjacent to the treated vertebra.

What Are the Risk Factors for Adjacent Vertebral Fracture After Vertebral Augmentation? A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To provide up-to-date evidence-based outcomes for the incidence and risk factors of adjacent vertebral fracture (AVF) after the vertebral augmentation.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies assessing the risk factors of adjacent vertebral fracture after vertebral augmentation until June 2020. The AVF incidence and factors potentially affecting AVF were extracted and pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies, encompassing 2549 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of AVF was 14% after vertebral augmentation. Female, lower T-score, thoracolumbar junction fracture, intravertebral cleft, more injected cement volume, intradiscal cement leakage significantly increased the risk of AVF. Age, body mass index, steroid medication, Cobb angle change, postoperative Cobb angle showed no significant association with AVF.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the risk factors of AVF can facilitate prevention strategy to avoid the AVF. Female, T-score, thoracolumbar junction fracture, intravertebral cleft, more cement volume, and intradiscal cement leakage increased the risk of AVF.

Does prophylactic vertebral augmentation reduce the refracture rate in osteoporotic vertebral fracture patients: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In order to prevent the recurrent fracture after vertebral augmentation, the concept of prophylactic vertebral augmentation has been proposed, but its efficacy is still controversial. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic vertebral augmentation for prevention of refracture in osteoporotic vertebral fracture patients.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases for relevant studies published until February 2021. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and retrospective controlled trials comparing prophylactic group versus nonprophylactic group was conducted. The primary outcome was the incidence of new vertebral compression fracture (VCF), and secondary outcomes were incidence of adjacent vertebral fracture (AVF) and remote vertebral fracture (RVF).

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies encompassing 618 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of new VCF was reported in all six studies, and the result showed no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.509; 95% CI: 0.184-1.409). Four studies provided data on the incidence of AVF, and it was revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.689; 95% CI: 0.109-4.371). In view of the incidence of RVF, prophylactic group also did not differ significantly compared with nonprophylactic group (OR: 0.535; 95% CI: 0.167-1.709).

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence suggested that prophylactic vertebral augmentation might not be appropriate to diminish the risk of new VCF. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the mechanism of refracture and explore other preventive regimens to reduce the risk.