Prophylactic vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty in osteoporosis: A comprehensive biomechanical matched-pair study by in vitro compressive testing. Med Eng Phys. 2019;65:46-56. [PMID: 30733174 DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.01.004]

Biomechanical Behavior of Injected Cement Spacers versus Traditional Cages in Low-Density Lumbar Spine under Compression Loading

Background and Objectives: Osteoporosis renders the use of traditional interbody cages potentially dangerous given the high risk of damage in the bone-implant interface. Instead, injected cement spacers can be applied as interbody devices; however, this technique has been mainly used in cervical spine surgery. This study aimed at investigating the biomechanical behavior of cement spacers versus traditional cages in lumbar spine surgery. Materials and Methods: Destructive monotonic axial compression testing was performed on 20 human cadaveric low-density lumbar segments from elderly donors (14 f/6 m, 70.3 ± 12.0 y) treated with either injected cement spacers (n = 10) or traditional cages (n = 10) without posterior instrumentation. Stiffness, failure load and displacement were compared. The effects of bone density, vertebral geometry and spacer contact area were evaluated. Results: Cement spacers demonstrated higher stiffness, significantly smaller displacement (p < 0.001) and a similar failure load compared to traditional cages. In the cage group, stiffness and failure load depended strongly on bone density and vertebral height, whereas failure displacement depended on vertebral anterior height. No such correlations were identified with cement spacers. Conclusions: Cement spacers used in lumbar interbody stabilization provided similar compression strength, significantly smaller failure displacement and a stiffer construct than traditional cages that provided benefits mainly for large and strong vertebrae. Cement stabilization was less sensitive to density and could be more beneficial also for segments with smaller and less dense vertebrae. In contrast to the injection of cement spacers, the optimal insertion of cages into the irregular intervertebral space is challenging and risks damaging bone. Further studies are required to corroborate these findings and the treatment selection thresholds.

Biomechanical analysis of sandwich vertebrae in osteoporotic patients: finite element analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanical stress of sandwich vertebrae (SVs) and common adjacent vertebrae in different degrees of spinal mobility in daily life.

Materials and methods

A finite element model of the spinal segment of T10-L2 was developed and validated. Simultaneously, T11 and L1 fractures were simulated, and a 6-ml bone cement was constructed in their center. Under the condition of applying a 500-N axial load to the upper surface of T10 and immobilizing the lower surface of L2, moments were applied to the upper surface of T10, T11, T12, L1, and L2 and divided into five groups: M-T10, M-T11, M-T12, M-L1, and M-L2. The maximum von Mises stress of T10, T12, and L2 in different groups was calculated and analyzed.

Results

The maximum von Mises stress of T10 in the M-T10 group was 30.68 MPa, 36.13 MPa, 34.27 MPa, 33.43 MPa, 26.86 MPa, and 27.70 MPa greater than the maximum stress value of T10 in the other groups in six directions of load flexion, extension, left and right lateral bending, and left and right rotation, respectively. The T12 stress value in the M-T12 group was 29.62 MPa, 32.63 MPa, 30.03 MPa, 31.25 MPa, 26.38 MPa, and 26.25 MPa greater than the T12 stress value in the other groups in six directions. The maximum stress of L2 in M-T12 in the M-L2 group was 25.48 MPa, 36.38 MPa, 31.99 MPa, 31.07 MPa, 30.36 MPa, and 32.07 MPa, which was greater than the stress value of L2 in the other groups. When the load is on which vertebral body, it is subjected to the greatest stress.

Conclusion

We found that SVs did not always experience the highest stress. The most stressed vertebrae vary with the degree of curvature of the spine. Patients should be encouraged to avoid the same spinal curvature posture for a long time in life and work or to wear a spinal brace for protection after surgery, which can avoid long-term overload on a specific spine and disrupt its blood supply, resulting in more severe loss of spinal quality and increasing the possibility of fractures.

Comparison of the biomechanical effects of lumbar disc degeneration on normal patients and osteoporotic patients: A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Some older patients who suffered from both conditions (disc degeneration and osteoporosis) have higher surgical risks and longer postoperative recovery times. Understanding the relation between disc degeneration and osteoporosis is fundamental to know the mechanisms of orthopedic disorders and improve clinical treatment. However, there is a lack of finite element (FE) studies to predict the combined effects of disc degeneration and osteoporosis. So the aim of the present study is to explore the differences of biomechanical effects of lumbar disc degeneration on normal patients and osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

A normal lumbar spine finite element model (FEM) was developed based on the geometric information of a healthy male subject (age 35 years; height 178 cm; weight 65 kg). This normal lumbar spine FEM was modified to build three lumbar spine degeneration models simulating mild, moderate and severe grades of disc degeneration at the L4-L5 segment. Then the degenerative lumbar spine models for osteoporotic patients were constructed on the basis of the above-mentioned degeneration models. Firstly, the normal model (flexion: 8 Nm; extension: 6 Nm; lateral bending: 6 Nm; torsion: 4 Nm) and degenerative models (10 Nm) were calibrated under pure moment load, respectively. Secondly, under a 400 N follower load, the 7.5 Nm moments of different directions were applied on all models to simulate different motion postures. Finally, under the above loading conditions, we calculated and analyzed the range of motion (ROM), Mises stress in cortical (MSC1), Mises stress in endplate (MSE), Mises stress in cancellous (MSC2), and Mises stress in post (MSP).

RESULTS

Compared with disc degeneration patients without osteoporosis, the ROM, MSC1, and MSE of osteoporosis patients with various disc degeneration decreased in all postures, while the MSC2 and MSP increased. With increase in the degree of disc degeneration, the reduction proportions of ROM and MSE in osteoporotic patients gradually increased, while the reduction percentages in MSC1 of osteoporotic patients gradually decreased. The increase percentages of MSC2 in osteoporotic patients gradually increased. Given the progressive changes of disc degeneration, the changes in MSP in osteoporosis patients were uneven.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the effect of disc degeneration on flexibility in the two kinds of patients (osteoporosis and non-osteoporosis patients) was nearly same. By comparing the remaining biomechanical parameters (MSC1, MSE, MSC2, and MSP), we found that degenerated intervertebral discs caused changes in loading patterns of osteoporosis patients. Disc degeneration reduced the Mises stress in the cortical and endplate, which increased the Mises stress in the cancellous and post. That is to say, in order to cope with the changes in bone stresses caused by disc degeneration and osteoporosis, clinicians should be more careful in choosing the surgical option for osteoporotic patients with disc degeneration.

A 20-Year Review of Biomechanical Experimental Studies on Spine Implants Used for Percutaneous Surgical Repair of Vertebral Compression Fractures

A vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is an injury to a vertebra of the spine affecting the cortical walls and/or middle cancellous section. The most common risk factor for a VCF is osteoporosis, thus predisposing the elderly and postmenopausal women to this injury. Clinical consequences include loss of vertebral height, kyphotic deformity, altered stance, back pain, reduced mobility, reduced abdominal space, and reduced thoracic space, as well as early mortality. To restore vertebral mechanical stability, overall spine function, and patient quality of life, the original percutaneous surgical intervention has been vertebroplasty, whereby bone cement is injected into the affected vertebra. Because vertebroplasty cannot fully restore vertebral height, newer surgical techniques have been developed, such as kyphoplasty, stents, jacks, coils, and cubes. But, relatively few studies have experimentally assessed the biomechanical performance of these newer procedures. This article reviews over 20 years of scientific literature that has experimentally evaluated the biomechanics of percutaneous VCF repair methods. Specifically, this article describes the basic operating principles of the repair methods, the study protocols used to experimentally assess their biomechanical performance, and the actual biomechanical data measured, as well as giving a number of recommendations for future research directions.

A Review of Strategies to Improve Biomechanical Fixation in the Cervical Spine

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

Review the surgical techniques and construct options aimed at improving the biomechanical strength of cervical constructs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify all studies examining biomechanical strategies utilized in the osteoporotic cervical spine. Screening was performed in duplicate for all stages of the review process.

RESULTS

An initial search returned 3887 articles. After deletion of duplications and review of abstracts and full text, 39 articles met inclusion criteria. Overall, the surgical techniques reviewed aimed at obtaining rigid fixation in the setting of poor bone quality, or dispersing the forces at the bone-implant interface. We identified 6 key techniques to improve biomechanical fixation. These include bicortical fixation, appropriate screw selection (size and trajectory), PMMA augmentation, load sharing techniques, consideration of ancillary fixation around the occipitocervical junction, and supplementing the construct with post-operative collar or halo.

CONCLUSION

The summation of the literature highlights a framework of modalities available to surgeons to improve biomechanical fixation in the cervical spine. While these may improve construct strength in the setting of osteoporosis, there is a paucity of evidence available to make recommendations in this patient population.

Development and Assessment of a Predictive Score for Vertebral Compression Fracture After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Spinal Metastases

IMPORTANCE

Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a potential adverse effect following treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess a risk stratification model for VCF after SBRT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study conducted at a high-volume referral center included 331 patients who had undergone 464 spine SBRT treatments from December 2007 through October 2019. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2020, to August 17, 2021. Exclusions included proton therapy, prior surgical intervention, vertebroplasty, or missing data.

EXPOSURES

One and 3 fraction spine SBRT treatments were most commonly delivered. Single-fraction treatments generally involved prescribed doses of 16 to 24 Gy (median, 20 Gy; range, 16-30 Gy) to gross disease compared with multifraction treatment that delivered a median of 30 Gy (range, 21-50 Gy).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The VCF and radiography components of the spinal instability neoplastic score were determined by a radiologist. Recursive partitioning analysis was conducted using separate training (70%), internal validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. The log-rank test was the criterion for node splitting.

RESULTS

Of the 331 participants, 88 were women (27%), and the mean (IQR) age was 63 (59-72) years. With a median follow-up of 21 months (IQR, 11-39 months), we identified 84 VCFs (18%), including 65 (77%) de novo and 19 (23%) progressive fractures. There was a median of 9 months (IQR, 3-21 months) to developing a VCF. From 15 candidate variables, 6 were identified using the backward selection method, feature importance testing, and a correlation heatmap. Four were selected via recursive partitioning analysis: epidural tumor extension, lumbar location, gross tumor volume of more than 10 cc, and a spinal instability neoplastic score of more than 6. One point was assigned to each variable, and the resulting multivariable Cox model had a concordance of 0.760. The hazard ratio per 1-point increase for VCF was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.62-2.30; P < .001). The cumulative incidence of VCF at 2 years (with death as a competing risk) was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2%-10.7%) for low-risk (score, 0-1; 273 [58.3%]), 17.0% (95% CI, 10.8%-26.7%) for intermediate-risk (score, 2; 99 [21.3%]), and 35.4% (95% CI, 26.7%-46.9%) for high-risk cases (score, 3-4; 92 [19.8%]) (P < .001). Similar results were observed for freedom from VCF using stratification.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this cohort study identify a subgroup of patients with high risk for VCF following treatment with SBRT who may potentially benefit from undergoing prophylactic spinal stabilization or vertebroplasty.

[Comparison of refracture risk between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae]

Objective

To compare the refracture risk between sandwich vertebrae and ordinary adjacent vertebrae, and to explore the risk factors related to refracture.

Methods

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 ₄-L ₅ 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.

Results

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 ( χ ²=10.638, P=0.001). Univariate analysis results showed that there was a significant difference in the number of augmented vertebrae between patients with and without refractures ( Z=0.870, P=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 ( P>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%)( χ ²=4.668, P=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 ( χ ²=4.823, P=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 ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

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.

Predictive risk factors for recollapse of cemented vertebrae after percutaneous vertebroplasty: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As one of the most common complications of osteoporosis, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) increases the risk of disability and mortality in elderly patients. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is considered to be an effective, safe, and minimally invasive treatment for OVCFs. The recollapse of cemented vertebrae is one of the serious complications of PVP. However, the risk factors associated with recollapse after PVP remain controversial.

AIM

To identify risk factors for the recollapse of cemented vertebrae after PVP in patients with OVCFs.

METHODS

A systematic search in EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed was conducted for relevant studies from inception until March 2020. Studies investigating risk factors for the recollapse of cemented vertebrae after PVP without additional trauma were selected for analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed by both the chi-squared test and the I-squared test. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

A total of nine case-control studies were included in our meta-analysis comprising 300 cases and 2674 controls. The significant risk factors for the recollapse of cemented vertebrae after PVP in OVCF patients were fractures located at the thoracolumbar junction (OR = 2.09; 95%CI: 1.30 to 3.38; P = 0.002), preoperative intravertebral cleft (OR = 2.97; 95%CI: 1.93 to 4.57; P < 0.00001), and solid lump distribution pattern of the cement (OR = 3.11; 95%CI: 1.91 to 5.07; P < 0.00001). The analysis did not support that age, gender, lumbar bone mineral density, preoperative visual analogue scale score, injected cement volume, intradiscal cement leakage, or vertebral height restoration could increase the risk for cemented vertebra recollapse after PVP in OVCFs.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that thoracolumbar junction fractures, preoperative intravertebral cleft, and solid lump cement distribution pattern are associated with the recollapse of cemented vertebrae after PVP in OVCF patients.

Fracture-free probability and predictors of new symptomatic fractures in sandwich, ordinary-adjacent, and non-adjacent vertebrae: a vertebra-specific survival analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the sandwich vertebra, is at higher risk of new symptomatic fractures (NSFs), and whether prophylactic augmentation might benefit patients with sandwich vertebrae.

OBJECTIVE

To compare fracture-free probabilities of sandwich, ordinary-adjacent, and non-adjacent vertebrae, and identify predictors of NSFs.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analyzed for patients who had undergone vertebral augmentation resulting in sandwich vertebrae. NSF rates were determined and predictors were identified using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1408 untreated vertebrae (147 sandwich, 307 ordinary-adjacent, 954 non-adjacent vertebrae) in 125 patients. NSFs involved 19 sandwich, 19 ordinary-adjacent, and 16 non-adjacent vertebrae. The NSF rate was significantly higher in the patients with sandwich vertebrae (27.2%) than among all patients (14.8%). At the vertebra-specific level, the NSFs rate was 12.9% for sandwich vertebrae, significantly higher than 6.2% for ordinary-adjacent and 1.7% for non-adjacent vertebrae. The corresponding fracture-free probabilities of sandwich, ordinary-adjacent, and non-adjacent vertebrae were 0.89, 0.95, and 0.99 at 1 year, and 0.85, 0.92, and 0.98 at 5 years (p<0.05). Cox modeling identified the following as predictors for occurrence of an NSF in a given vertebra: vertebra location, type of vertebrae, number of augmented vertebrae, and puncture method.

CONCLUSION

Sandwich vertebrae are at higher risk of NSFs than ordinary-adjacent and non-adjacent vertebrae, and several NSF risk factors were identified. Since 85% of sandwich vertebrae are fracture-free for 5 years and NSF risk increases with the number of augmented vertebrae, prophylactic augmentation of every sandwich vertebra may be unnecessary.

How the clinical dosage of bone cement biomechanically affects adjacent vertebrae

Objective

This study evaluated the biomechanical changes in the adjacent vertebrae under a physiological load (500 N) when the clinically relevant amount of bone cement was injected into fractured cadaver vertebral bodies.

Methods

The embalmed cadaver thoracolumbar specimens in which each vertebral body (T12–L2) had a BMD of < 0.75 g/cm² were used for the experiment. For establishing a fracture model, the upper one third of the L1 vertebra was performed wedge osteotomy and the superior endplate was kept complete. Stiffness of specimens was measured in different states. Strain of the adjacent vertebral body and intervertebral disc were measured in pre-fracture, post-fracture, and after augmentation by non-contact optical strain measurement system.

Results

The average amount of bone cement was 4.4 ml (3.8–5.0 ml). The stiffness of after augmentation was significantly higher than the stiffness of post-fracture (p < 0.05), but still lower than pre-fracture stiffness (p < 0.05). After augmentation, the adjacent upper vertebral strain showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) with pre-fracture, while the strain of adjacent lower vertebral body was significantly higher than that before fracture (p < 0.05). In flexion, T12/L1 intervertebral disc strain was significantly greater after augmentation than after the fracture (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference from that before the fracture (p > 0.05); L1/2 vertebral strain after augmentation was significantly less than that after the fracture (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference from that before the fracture (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

PVP may therefore have partially reversed the abnormal strain state of adjacent vertebral bodies which was caused by fracture.

Prophylactic Percutaneous Kyphoplasty Treatment for Nonfractured Vertebral Bodies in Thoracolumbar for Osteoporotic Patients

Purpose

The occurrence of new vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) is a common complication after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP). Secondary VCFs after PKP occur predominantly in the thoracolumbar segment (T11 to L2). Prophylactic injections of cement into vertebral bodies in order to reduce new VCFs have rarely been reported. The main purpose of this study was to investigate whether prophylactically injecting cement into a nonfractured vertebral body at the thoracolumbar level (T11-L2) could reduce the occurrence of new VCFs.

Methods

From July 2011 to July 2018, PKP was performed in 86 consecutive patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) in the thoracolumbar region (T11-L2). All patients selected underwent PKP because of existing OVCFs (nonprophylactic group). Additionally, 78 consecutive patients with fractured vertebrae in the thoracolumbar region (T11-L2) with OVCFs underwent PKP and received prophylactic injections of cement into their nonfractured vertebrae in the thoracolumbar region (T11-L2) (prophylactic group). The visual analog scale (VAS) scores and incidence of new VCFs after PKP were compared between the two groups.

Results

The mean VAS scores improved from 8.00 ± 0.79 preoperatively to 1.62 ± 0.56 at the last follow-up in the nonprophylactic group and improved from 8.17 ± 0.84 to 1.76 ± 0.34 in the prophylactic group (P > 0.05). In the nonprophylactic group, 21 of 86 patients (24.4%) developed new VCFs within one year after PKP, of whom 15 patients (71.4%) developed VCFs within 3 months. In the prophylactic group, 8 of 78 patients (10.3%) developed new VCFs within one year, and 6 of these 8 patients (75%) developed new VCFs within 3 months. The incidence of new VCFs was significantly higher in the nonprophylactic group than that in the prophylactic group at one year (P = 0.018), but there were no statistically significant differences at three months (P = 0.847).

Conclusions

Prophylactic injections of cement into nonfractured (T11-L2) vertebral bodies reduced the incidence of secondary VCFs after PKP in patients with OVCFs, but there was no significant difference in local back pain (VAS) scores between the two groups.