Article Figures & Data
Tables
Study No. of Patients/Fractures Treated No. of Incident Fractures/Patients with Incident Fractures (% of Treated Patients) Adjacent? (%) Follow-up Notes Alvarez et al52 260/423 15 patients (6%) Amar et al53 97/258 21 patients (22%) 14.7 mo Osteoporosis and malignancy-induced fractures Barr et al17 38/70 1/1 (3%) Yes (100) 18 mo Prophylactic treatment of T9, T10, L1, L2 Chen et al54 27 patients 2 patients (7%) Yes (—*) 1 y Patients with intraosseus clefts; scheduled imaging follow-up; only reported adjacent fractures Cortet et al45 16/20 0/0 (0%) 6 mo Prospective study, no control Cyteval et al55 20/20 5/5 pts (25%) 1 (20) 6 mo Study design not indicated Diamond et al46 55/71 3 patients (5%) No (0) 215 d Prospective study, controlled, nonrandomized Diamond et al1 126 patients (88 VP) 40 (29 VP)/30 (21 VP–27%) Yes (43) 629 d Extension of Diamond et al46; 21 patients died, 7 lost to follow-up (% based on patients with maximal follow-up) Do et al2 167/264 29 patients (17%) Yes (62) 6–36 mo Prospective study, no control; no significant difference in likelihood of incident fracture occurring above or below treated level Grados et al3 25/34 34/13 (52%) 48 mo Grohs et al56 23/29 1/1 (4%) Yes (—*) 2 y Prospective, nonrandomized comparison of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty; only reported adjacent fractures Heini et al4 17/45 2/2 (12%) 2 (100) 1 y Prospective, no control; scheduled imaging follow-up Jensen and Dion5 109/174 27/19 (17%) Kallmes and Jensen6 58 patients Yes (50) Kim et al18 106/212 72 fractures Some RR of fracture at adjacent level = 3.03 36 mo Only looked at the 5 vertebrae immediately above and below the treated level; scheduled imaging follow-up Kobayashi et al7 175/250 36/31 (18%) 21 (58) 15.3 mo Prospective study, no control Legroux-Gerot et al8 16/21 12/7 (44%) 3 nonadjacent; 3 (25%) adjacent to untreated fxs; 6 (50%) adjacent to treated fxs 35 mo Prospective study, no control Lin et al40 38/96 22/14 (37%) 11 (50%)†: 8 (73%) were fractures of the endplate immediately abutting the cement leakage 12 mo Study of relationship between cement leakage and incident fractures McKiernan et al57 44/66 4/3 (8%) 2 (50) 6 mo Prospective study, no control; 5 patients died within 6 mo Perez-Higueras et al9 13/27 4/3 (23%) 2 (50) 5 y Prospective study, no control; scheduled imaging follow-up Syed et al10 253/511 121/55 (11%) 60 (49.6) 1 y “Many patients experienced incident fractures after 1 yr”, but these were excluded Syed et al41 308 patients 78 fractures 41 (52.5%) 36.5 wk Study of the relationship between cement leakage and incident fracture; osteoporosis and malignancy-induced fractures Tanigawa et al11 76/206 56/28 (37%) 38 (67.8) 11.5 mo Prospective study, no control; scheduled imaging follow-up Uppin et al12 177 patients 36/22 (12%) 24 (67) Voormolen et al35 66/102 26/16 (24%) 14 (53.8) 1 y Prospective study, no control; scheduled imaging follow-up Yu et al13 68/68 7 patients (10%) Yes (—*) 13 mo Study design not indicated; only reported adjacent fractures Zoarski et al14 30/54 3 patients (13%) 15–18 mo Study design not indicated; only 23 respondents at long-term follow-up Note:—VP indicates vertebroplasty; fxs, fractures. These data were gathered from the data given in the published manuscripts. Unless otherwise indicated, all studies were retrospective in design.
* Percentage not calculated because only adjacent fractures reported.
† Eleven fractures clearly indicated as adjacent and associated with cement leakage. Data presented are not clear regarding the location of fractures not associated with cement leakage (may be additional adjacent fractures).
Superior Endplate (%) Inferior Endplate (%) Holovertebral (%) Prevalent fractures 57 11 32 Incident fractures Nonadjacent 69 25 6 Adjacent above treated level 84 12 4 Adjacent below treated level 30 57 13 Note:—Among prevalent fractures, superior endplate fractures predominate. Following vertebroplasty, however, in fractures immediately above the treated level (adjacent above), inferior endplate fractures predominate.42
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Comparing Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Conservative Therapy for Treating Osteoporotic Compression Fractures in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Comparative Study of Percutaneous Vertebral Body Perforation and Vertebroplasty for the Treatment of Painful Vertebral Compression Fractures
- Treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PERCUTANEOUS VERTEBROPLASTY
- Asymptomatic and Unrecognized Cement Pulmonary Embolism Commonly Occurs with Vertebroplasty
- Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Is Not a Risk Factor for New Osteoporotic Compression Fractures: Results from VERTOS II
- Vertebroplasty: What Is Important and What Is Not
- Teriparatide and Raloxifene Reduce the Risk of New Adjacent Vertebral Fractures in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis: Results from Two Randomized Controlled Trials
- Efficacy of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for Multiple Synchronous and Metachronous Vertebral Compression Fractures
- Vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fracture