Liu Jin, Tang Jing, Chen Guo, Gu Zuchao, Zhang Yu, Yu Shenghui, Liu Hao
Department of Orthopedics, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Department of Orthopedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R.China.
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2021 Sep 15;35(9):1161-1166. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202104060.
To compare the refracture risk between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and to explore the risk factors related to refracture.
Retrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients who received percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and formed sandwich vertebrae between April 2015 and October 2019. Of them, 115 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 27 males and 88 females with an average age of 73.9 years (range, 53-89 years). Univariate analysis was performed to analyzed the patients' general data, vertebral augmentation related indexes, and sandwich vertebrae related indexes. Survival analysis was performed for all untreated vertebrae at T -L of the included patients at the vertebra-specific level, and risk curves of refracture probability of untreated vertebrae between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae were compared. Cox's proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze risk factors for refracture.
The 115 patients were followed up 12.6-65.9 months (mean, 36.2 months). Thirty-seven refractures involving 51 vertebral bodies occurred in 31 patients. The refracture rate of 27.0% (31/115) in patients with sandwich vertebrae was significantly higher than that of 15.2% (187/1228) in all patients who received PVA during the same period ( =10.638, =0.001). Univariate analysis results showed that there was a significant difference in the number of augmented vertebrae between patients with and without refractures ( =0.870, =0.004). However, there was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, whether had clear causes of fracture, whether had dual energy X-ray absorptiometry testing, whether the sandwich vertebra generated through the same PVA, puncture method, method of PVA, number of PVA procedures, number of vertebrae with old fracture, whether complicated with spinal deformity, bone cement distribution, and kyphosis angle of sandwich vertebral area ( >0.05). Among the 1 293 untreated vertebrae, there were 136 sandwich vertebrae and 286 ordinary adjacent vertebrae. The refracture rate of sandwich vertebrae was 11.3% which was higher than that of ordinary adjacent vertebrae (6.3%)( =4.668, =0.031). The 1- and 5-year fracture-free probabilities were 0.90 and 0.87 for the sandwich vertebrae, and 0.95 and 0.93 for the ordinary adjacent vertebrae, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two risk curves of refracture ( =4.823, =0.028). Cox's proportional hazards regression model analysis results showed that the sandwich vertebrae, thoracolumbar location, the number of the augmented vertebrae, and the unilateral puncture were significant risk factors for refracture ( <0.05).
The sandwich vertebrae has a higher risk of refracture when compared with the ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and its 1- and 5-year fracture-free probabilities are lower than those of the ordinary adjacent vertebrae. However, the 5-year fracture-free probability of sandwich vertebrae is still 0.87, so prophylactic enhancement is not recommended for all sandwich vertebrae. In addition, the sandwich vertebrae, thoracolumbar location, the number of the augmented vertebrae, and the unilateral puncture were important risk factors for refracture.
比较夹心椎骨与普通相邻椎骨的再骨折风险,并探讨与再骨折相关的危险因素。
对2015年4月至2019年10月期间接受经皮椎体强化术(PVA)并形成夹心椎骨的患者数据进行回顾性分析。其中115例患者纳入研究。男性27例,女性88例,平均年龄73.9岁(范围53 - 89岁)。进行单因素分析以分析患者的一般资料、椎体强化相关指标和夹心椎骨相关指标。对纳入患者T - L节段所有未治疗椎体在椎体特异性水平进行生存分析,比较夹心椎骨与普通相邻椎骨未治疗椎体再骨折概率的风险曲线。采用Cox比例风险回归模型分析再骨折的危险因素。
115例患者随访12.6 - 65.9个月(平均36.2个月)。31例患者发生37次再骨折,累及51个椎体。夹心椎骨患者的再骨折率为27.0%(31/115),显著高于同期接受PVA的所有患者的15.2%(187/1228)( =10.638, =0.001)。单因素分析结果显示,有再骨折与无再骨折患者的强化椎体数量存在显著差异( =0.870, =0.004)。然而,在性别、年龄、体重指数、是否有明确骨折原因、是否进行双能X线吸收测定、夹心椎骨是否通过同一次PVA产生、穿刺方法、PVA方法、PVA手术次数、陈旧骨折椎体数量、是否合并脊柱畸形、骨水泥分布以及夹心椎骨区域的后凸角度方面,差异均无统计学意义( >0.05)。在1293个未治疗椎体中,夹心椎骨136个,普通相邻椎骨286个。夹心椎骨的再骨折率为11.3%,高于普通相邻椎骨(6.3%)( =4.668, =0.031)。夹心椎骨的1年和5年无骨折概率分别为0.90和0.87,普通相邻椎骨分别为0.95和0.93。两条再骨折风险曲线之间存在显著差异( =4.823, =0.028)。Cox比例风险回归模型分析结果显示,夹心椎骨、胸腰段位置、强化椎体数量和单侧穿刺是再骨折的显著危险因素( <0.05)。
与普通相邻椎骨相比,夹心椎骨再骨折风险更高,其1年和5年无骨折概率低于普通相邻椎骨。然而,夹心椎骨的5年无骨折概率仍为0.87,因此不建议对所有夹心椎骨进行预防性强化。此外,夹心椎骨、胸腰段位置、强化椎体数量和单侧穿刺是再骨折的重要危险因素。