Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Jun;130(6):765-74. doi: 10.1007/s00402-010-1083-6. Epub 2010 Mar 11.
Vertebral fractures (VF) are a leading cause of morbidity in the elderly. In the past decade, minimally invasive bone augmentation techniques for VF, such as percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP) have become more widespread. According to the literature, both techniques provide significant pain relief. However, KP is more expensive and technically more demanding than VP. The current study surveyed German surgeons who practice percutaneous augmentation to evaluate and compare decisions regarding the implementation of these techniques. Is there a difference in the indications and contraindications of VP and KP compared with the interdisciplinary consensus paper on VP and KP of the German medical association in the treatment of VF?
A multiple choice questionnaire was designed with questions regarding diagnostic procedures, clinical and radiologic (AO classification) indications, as well as contraindications for both VP and KP. A panel of five experts refined the initial questionnaire. The final version was then sent to 580 clinics registered to practice KP in Germany. The statistical analysis was done by two authors, who collected the questionnaire data and Wilcoxon's signed ranks test was performed for non-parametric variables with SPSS.
327 of 580 questionnaires (56.4%) were completed and returned. 151 (46.2%) of participants were performing both procedures, and 176 (53.8%) performed KP only. Median duration from onset of acute pain to intervention was 3 weeks. For most participants (95.4%), consistent back pain at the fracture level with a visual analog scale score over 5 was the main clinical indication for VP and KP. A1 and A3.1 fractures from osteoporosis and metastasis were considered indications for KP. Osteoporotic A1.1 fractures were an indication for VP. Traumatic A3.2 fractures were not an indication for either procedure. Major contraindications to both procedures were active infection (94.7%), cement allergy (86.8%), and coagulation disorders (80.3%).
Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty both have roles in the treatment of vertebral fractures. However, we could see differences in the indications for the two percutaneous techniques. Participants of this study found more indications for KP versus VP in cases of painful A1.2 and A3.1 fractures due to osteoporosis, metastasis, and trauma. About half of the respondents reported that VP is indicated for osteoporotic and pathologic A1.1 fractures. This study offers only limited conclusions. Open questionnaires and prospective data from all clinicians performing these procedures should be analyzed to offer more specific information.
椎体骨折(VF)是老年人发病和致残的主要原因。在过去的十年中,用于 VF 的微创骨增强技术,例如经皮椎体成形术(VP)和后凸成形术(KP),已经变得更加普及。根据文献,这两种技术都能显著缓解疼痛。但是,KP 比 VP 更昂贵且技术要求更高。本研究调查了在德国进行经皮增强术的外科医生,以评估和比较实施这些技术的决策。在治疗 VF 时,VP 和 KP 的跨学科共识文件中列出的 VP 和 KP 的适应证和禁忌证与实际操作中是否存在差异?
设计了一份多项选择题问卷,其中包含有关诊断程序、临床和影像学(AO 分类)适应证以及 VP 和 KP 的禁忌证的问题。一个由五名专家组成的小组对初始问卷进行了修订。然后将最终版本发送给德国注册进行 KP 手术的 580 家诊所。由两名作者进行统计分析,收集问卷数据,并使用 SPSS 对非参数变量进行 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验。
580 份问卷中,有 327 份(56.4%)完成并返回。151 名(46.2%)参与者同时进行了这两种手术,176 名(53.8%)仅进行了 KP。从急性疼痛发作到干预的中位时间为 3 周。对于大多数参与者(95.4%),在骨折水平上持续存在伴有视觉模拟量表评分超过 5 的背痛是 VP 和 KP 的主要临床适应证。骨质疏松症和转移引起的 A1 和 A3.1 骨折被认为是 KP 的适应证。骨质疏松症引起的 A1.1 骨折是 VP 的适应证。创伤性 A3.2 骨折不是这两种手术的适应证。两种手术的主要禁忌证均为活动性感染(94.7%)、水泥过敏(86.8%)和凝血障碍(80.3%)。
VP 和 KP 均在治疗 VF 中发挥作用。但是,我们可以看到两种经皮技术的适应证存在差异。该研究的参与者发现,对于由于骨质疏松症、转移和外伤引起的疼痛性 A1.2 和 A3.1 骨折,KP 的适应证多于 VP。约一半的受访者报告称,VP 适用于骨质疏松症和病理性 A1.1 骨折。本研究仅提供有限的结论。应该分析所有实施这些手术的临床医生的开放式问卷和前瞻性数据,以提供更具体的信息。