Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment options for vertebral fractures an overview of different philosophies and techniques for vertebral augmentation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

For more than 30 years, minimally invasive surgical procedures have been available to stabilize the fractured vertebrae by cement augmentation leading to significant pain relief, a distinct improvement in quality of life and decreased mortality for patients suffering from osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. This overview article is designed to provide information on the wide range of augmentation methods previously tested and clinically applied in surgery in an attempt to compile the clinically relevant information on safety and efficacy in the published literature.

Method

Based on an extensive literature review on the topic of “vertebral fractures—surgical augmentation techniques” we summarized the results of published clinical trials and experimental testing which address clinically relevant questions. The selection of the publications in reference books and scientific journals covers the time period from the end of the 1970s until the present.

Results

The final selection of more than 50 publications with, in the opinion of the authors, clinically relevant data led to the following results, which can be of significance for clinical application. The prerequisites for the success of all augmentation methods include the earliest possible surgical intervention, optimal technical equipment and an experienced, interdisciplinary team, as well as thorough consideration of the situation of the individual patient. The selection of the material for vertebral augmentation depends on the surgical method. The material of choice remains polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and the best record of efficacy and safety is displayed by radiofrequency kyphoplasty with ultrahigh-viscosity cement. Regarding clinical efficacy and safety, there are many convincing documentations showing superiority of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in comparison with conservative therapeutic regimens. Initial results of clinical studies with additional implants indicate a trend toward further improvement in clinical success and suggest possible broader clinical possibilities of application.

Conclusion

Modern, minimally invasive augmentation techniques represent a real alternative to conservative treatment of patients with vertebral fractures. Further technical and clinical development in this area should aim at optimizing procedural safety while continuing to achieve comparably good results to current methods. Minimizing damage to the remaining trabecular structures as well as to adjacent vertebral disks and vertebrae should be paramount of importance.

Summary

Options for the treatment of vertebral fractures: Reductions in bone density and pathological changes in bone structure are associated with an elevated risk of fractures, which can lead to decisive functional impairment, pain, and a host of further comorbidities. Vertebral augmentation can be considered as an alternative conservative treatment, in order to achieve immediate and lasting pain relief as well as improvement in functional impairment. To achieve greater safety, instrumentation for transpedicular access and incorporation of radiopacifiers in PMMA for vertebroplasty were developed in mid-eighties. Balloon kyphoplasty was introduced in the end nineties, and results of prospective, randomized clinical studies have confirmed the safety and efficacy; the destruction of the remaining native spongiosa structures during balloon expansion is viewed as a disadvantage of this method. The two step method of cavity creation followed by cement delivery known as kyphoplasty has been further refined and developed by and varied by technology/procedural developments. This includes most the radiofrequency kyphoplasty (DFINE Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), in which ultrahigh-viscosity cement is delivered at a controlled delivery rate, following producing a bone sparing size and side specific cavity which minimizes loss of spongiosa, allowing for mechanical stability upon interdigitation of cement into that remaining trabecular bone. This combination has been shown to preserve vertebral structures and reduces the risk of leakages. Finally, systems have been available in which cement augmentation of implants to enhance mechanical stability of the implants or the overall fracture is constructed by load sharing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Felsenberg D, Silman AJ, Lunt M et al (2002) For the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS) Group. Incidence of vertebral fracture in Europe. J Bone Miner 17:716–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kado DM, Browner WS, Palermo L et al (1999) Vertebral fractures and mortality in older women a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 159:1215–1220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Denisson E, Cooper C (2002) Epidemiology of osteoporotic fractures. Horm Res 54 (Suppl)1:58–63

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bartel R (2008) Osteoporose—Prävention, Diagnostik, Therapie 4. Auflage, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  5. Klotzbuecher CM, Ross PD, Landsmann PB (2000) Patients with prior fractures have an increased risk of future fractures. J Bone Miner Res 15(4):721–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Habermann B, Kurth AA (2012) Die Problematik einer Fraktur unter osteoporotischen Stoffwechselbedingungen—in Orthopädische Osteologie (Andreas A Kurth und Mitarbeiter) UNI-MED Verlag AG s, pp 16–25

  7. Resch H, Muschitz C (2008) Drug therapy in osteoporosis in balloon kyphoplasty. In: Becker S, Ogon M (eds) Balloon kyphoplasty. Springer, Wien, pp 49–72

  8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2006) Balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures JPG 166: 2006 Publications.nice.org.uk

  9. Kaufman TJ, Jensen ME, Schweikert PA et al (2001) Age of fracture and clinical outcomes of percutaneous vertebroplasty. Am J Neuroradiol 22(10):1860–1863

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baraud G, Steffe T, Heini P (2004) Injection biomechanics of bone cements used in vertebroplasty. Biomed Mater Eng 14:487–504

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deramond H, Depriester C, Galibert P et al (1998) Percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate. Radiol Clin North Am 36(3):533–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scoville WB, Palmer AH, Samra K, Chon G (1967) The use of acrylic plastic for vertebral replacement or fixation in metastatic disease. J Neurosurg 27:274–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kustuik JP, Errico TJ, Gleason TF (1986) Techniques of internal fixation for degenarative conditions of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 203:219–231

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cibulski GR (1989) Methodes of surgical stabilization for metastatic disease of the spine. Neurosurgery 25:240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Galipert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, La Gars D (1987) Preliminary note of the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 33:166–168

    Google Scholar 

  16. Déramond H, Daasson R, Galibert P (1989) Percutaneous vertebroplasty with acrylic cement in the treatment of aggressive spinal angiomas. Rachis 177:467–472

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lapras C, Mottolese C, Deruty R et al (1989) Percutaneous injection of methyl-metacrylate in osteoporosis and severe vertebral osteolysis (Galibert's technic). Ann Chir 43(5):371–376

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jensen ME, Evans AJ, Mathis JM et al (1997) Percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate in vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures. Am J Neuroradiol 18(10):1897–1904

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cotton A, Dewatre F, Cortet B et al (1996) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteolytic metastases and myeloma. Radiology 2000(2):525–535

    Google Scholar 

  20. Watts NB, Harris ST, Genant HK (2001) Treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures with percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Osteoporos Int 12:429–437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heini PF, Walchli B, Berlemann U (2000) Percutaneus transpedicular vertebroplasty with PMMA: operative technique and early results. Eur Spine J 9:445–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guyot LL, Balahadra R, Fessler RD (2005) Mechanisms of pain relief following vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. In: Resnick DR, Garfin SR (eds) Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty. Thieme Medical Publishers Inc. New York, Stuttgart, pp 10–13

  23. Venmans A, Klazen CA, Lohle PN (2010) Percutaneous vertebroplasty and pulmonary cement embolism: results from Vertos II. Am J Neuroradiol 31:1451–1453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bohner M, Gasser B, Baroud G, Heini P (2003) Theoretical and experimental model to describe the injection of a polymethylmethacrylate cement into a porous structure. Biomaterials 24(16):2721–2730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361(6):557–568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Baerlocher MO, Munk PL, Liu DM et al (2010) Clinical utility of vertebroplasty. Need for better evidence. Radiology 255(3):669–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brook AL, Miller TS, Nolan T et al (2009) Vertebral augmentation with a flexible curved needle. J Vasc Interv Radiol 20(4):553–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Becker S (2008) The technique of balloon kyphoplasty. In: Becker S, Ogon M (eds) Balloon kyphoplasty. Springer, Wien, pp 49–72

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Ledlie JT, Renfro M (2003) Balloon kyphoplasty: 1-year outcomes in vertebral body height of vertebral compression fractures. J Bone Miner Res 18:24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sandhu FA, Thompson BG, Perez-Cruet MJ et al (2005) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: an overview. In: Resnick DK, Garfin SG (eds) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Thieme medical Publishers, Inc, New York, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lieberman ICH, Dudeny S, Reinhardt MK, Bell G (2001) Initial outcome and efficacy of kyphoplasty in the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine 26:1631–1638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wong WH, Reiley MA, Garfin SR (2000) Vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty. J Women′s Imaging 2:117–124

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gaitanis IN, Hadjipavlou AG, Katonis P et al (2005) Balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of pathological vertebral compressive fractures. Eur Spine J 14(3):250–260

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Garfin SR, Buckley RA, Ledlie J (2006) Balloon kyphoplasty for symptomatic vertebral body compression fractures results in rapid, significant, and sustained improvements in back pain, function, and quality of life for elderly patients. Spine 31(19):2213–2220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pflugmacher R, Kandziora F, Schroeder R et al (2005) Vertebroplastie und Kyphoplastie bei osteoporotischen Wirbelkörperfrakturen—Eine prospektive Analyse der Einjahresergebnisse. Fortschr Röntgenstr 177:1670–1676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Fritzell P (2006) Balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures: a comparative systematic review of efficacy and safety. Spine 1, 31 (23):2747–2755

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pflugmacher R, Bornemann R, Koch EMW et al (2012) Vergleichende Befunderhebungen der Ballon-Kyphoplastie bei Patienten mit Wirbelkörper-Frakturen infolge von Osteoporose, Metastasen und Myelomen. Z Orthop u Unfallchirurgie 150:198–204

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bouza C, Lopez T, Agro A et al (2006) Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures. Eur Spine J 15(7):1050–1067

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wardlaw D, Cummings STR, Van Meirhaeghe J et al (2009) Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE). Lancet 373:1016–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Oberkircher L, Krüger A, Bliemel C et al (2011) Zementinterdigitation und Knochenzement-Interface unterschiedlicher Wirbelkörperaugmentationsverfahren. Osteoporose Rheuma aktuell 1:12–14

    Google Scholar 

  42. Becker S, Dabirrhamani D, Hogg M et al (2011) Disadvantages of balloon kyphoplasty with PMMA—A clinical and biomechanical statement. J Miner Stoffwechs 18(1):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dalton B, Kohm A, Miller L et al (2012) Radiofrequency-targeted vertebral augmentation versus traditional balloon kyphoplasty: radiographic and morphologic outcomes of an ex vivo biomechanical pilot study. Clin Interv Aging 7:525–531

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Elgeti F, Marnitz T, Kröncke TJ et al (2010) Radiofrequenzkyphoplastie (RFK)—Kyphoplastie mit ultrahochviskösem Zement. Fortsch Röntgenstr 182:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Bornemann R, Hanna M, Kabir K et al (2012) Continuing conservative care versus crossover to radiofrequency kyphoplasty: a comparative effectiveness study on the treatment of vertebral body fractures. Eur Spine J 21:930–936

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pflugmacher R, Bornemann R, Koch EM et al (2012) Comparison of clinical and radiological data in the treatment of patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures using radiofrequency kyphoplasty or balloon kyphoplasty. Z Orthop Unfallchir 150:56–61

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Mattyasovszky S, Kafchitsas K, Kurth AA Osteoporotische Wirbelkörperfrakturen—gezielte, kontrollierte Behandlung mit der Radiofrequenz (RF)-Kyphoplastie. In: Kurth AA (ed) Orthopädische Osteologie. Uni-Med Verlag Bremen1. Aufl., pp 85–89

  48. Licht AW, Kramer W (2012) Radiofrequenz-Kyphoplastie (DFine) versus konventionelle Ballon-Kyphoplastie (Medtronic)—Eine prospektive Studie zur Effektivität und Sicherheit Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Berlin

  49. Mostertz R (2012) Behandlung einer 3.1 Fraktur des LWK 1 mit lateraler Hinterwandbeteiligung mittels Radiofrequenz-(RF-)Kyphoplastie—Osteoporose und Rheuma aktuell Sonderheft. pp 82–84

  50. Drahten C (2012) Radiofrequenz-Kyphoplastie bei Pinzer-Fraktur (LWK 3) eines multimorbiden Patienten Eine Fall-Beschreibung—Osteoporose und Rheuma aktuell Sonderheft. pp 90–94

  51. Prokop A, König B, Schultheiss M et al (2011) Kyphoplastie update. Wo liegen die Grenzen—was geht?, Springer, Unfallchirurg. doi:10.1007/s00113-011-2098-3

  52. Fürderer S, Anders M, Schwindling B et al (2002) Vertebral body stenting. A method for repositioning and augmenting vertebral compression fractures. Orthopäde 31(4):356–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rotter R, Martin H, Fuerderer S et al (2010) Vertebral body stenting: a new method for vertebral augmentation versus kyphoplasty. Eur Spine J 19(6):916–923

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Korovessis P, Repantis T, Miller LE, Block JE (2011) Initial clinical experience with a novel vertebral augmentation system for treatment of symptomatic vertebral compression fractures: a case series of 26 consecutive patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2:206–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Endres S, Badura A (2012) Shield kyphoplasty through a unipedicular approach compared to vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty in osteoporotic thoracolumbar fracture: a prospective randomized study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(3):334–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Röllinghoff M, Zarghooni K, Zeh A et al (2012) Is there a stable vertebral height restoration with the new radiofrequency kyphoplasty? A clinical and radiological study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-1026-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Sigmund-Freud Str. 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany

    R. Bornemann, E. M. W. Koch & R. Pflugmacher

  2. MedImbursement, Im Ortfeld 46, 27412, Tarmstedt, Germany

    M. Wollny

Authors
  1. R. Bornemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. M. W. Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Wollny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Pflugmacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Bornemann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bornemann, R., Koch, E.M.W., Wollny, M. et al. Treatment options for vertebral fractures an overview of different philosophies and techniques for vertebral augmentation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24 (Suppl 1), 131–143 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1257-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1257-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation