Department of Orthopaedics (Spine Surgery), The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000, China.
Department of Orthopaedics, Yuhuan County People's Hospital, Taizhou, 317600, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Nov 16;15(1):535. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-02048-z.
Cemented vertebrae frequently re-fracture after vertebroplasty to treat osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) with large clefts. We compared the efficacy of planned and central-clefted puncture, both followed by a second puncture, as treatments for OVCFs with large clefts.
We retrospectively studied 38 patients. 18 of whom underwent planned puncture (group A) and 20 central-clefted puncture (group B). A second puncture was performed when the initially injected cement was restricted to the cleft. We recorded a visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, vertebral kyphotic angles (KAs), and compression ratios (CRs) preoperatively and at 2 days and 6 months postoperatively. We recorded the cement dispersion patterns and complications.
Second punctures succeeded in 15/18 and 7/20 patients of groups A and B, respectively. At 2 days postoperatively, the VAS score, KA, and CR were significantly better than the preoperative values (P < 0.01); no significant difference was found between the two groups (P > 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, all scores were poorer than at 2 days postoperatively (all P < 0.05), significantly more so in group B than group A (P < 0.05). Significant differences in terms of the cement dispersion patterns, and the cemented vertebral re-fracture and cement leakage rates, were observed between the two groups (all P < 0.05).
The two-puncture techniques were initially effective when treating large-clefted OVCFs. However, compared to the central-clefted puncture, the planned puncture improved the success rate of the second puncture, allowed better cement dispersion, and reduced the incidence of vertebral re-fracture during follow-up.
在治疗伴有大裂隙的骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(OVCF)时,骨水泥椎体强化术后椎体常再次骨折。我们比较了计划穿刺和中央裂隙穿刺两种方法的疗效,两种方法均在初次穿刺后进行第二次穿刺。
回顾性研究了 38 例患者。其中 18 例行计划穿刺(A 组),20 例行中央裂隙穿刺(B 组)。当最初注入的骨水泥仅限于裂隙时,进行第二次穿刺。记录术前、术后 2 天和 6 个月的视觉模拟评分(VAS)疼痛评分、椎体后凸角(KA)和压缩比(CR)。记录骨水泥弥散模式和并发症。
A 组和 B 组分别有 15/18 和 7/20 例患者成功进行了第二次穿刺。术后 2 天,VAS 评分、KA 和 CR 均明显优于术前(P<0.01);两组间无显著差异(P>0.05)。6 个月随访时,所有评分均较术后 2 天差(均 P<0.05),B 组明显差于 A 组(P<0.05)。两组骨水泥弥散模式、骨水泥椎体再骨折和骨水泥渗漏率差异均有统计学意义(均 P<0.05)。
两种穿刺技术治疗大裂隙 OVCF 初始疗效确切。与中央裂隙穿刺相比,计划穿刺可提高第二次穿刺成功率,使骨水泥弥散更好,降低随访期间椎体再骨折发生率。