The variability of vertebral body volume and pain associated with osteoporotic vertebral fractures: conservative treatment versus percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty

Diana Andrei,Iulian Popa,Silviu Brad,Aida Iancu,Manuel Oprea,Cristina Vasilian,Dan V Poenaru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3409-2

Abstract:Introduction: Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) can lead to late collapse which often causes kyphotic spinal deformity, persistent back pain, decreased lung capacity, increased fracture risk and increased mortality. The purpose of our study is to compare the efficacy and safety of vertebroplasty against conservative management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures without neurologic symptoms. Material and methods: A total of 66 patients with recent OVF on MRI examination were included in the study. All patients were admitted from September 2009 to September 2012. The cohort was divided into two groups. The first study group consisted of 33 prospectively followed consecutive patients who suffered 40 vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty (group 1), and the control group consisted of 33 patients who suffered 41 vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated conservatively because they refused vertebroplasty (group 2). The data collection has been conducted in a prospective registration manner. The inclusion criteria consisted of painful OVF matched with imagistic findings. We assessed the results of pain relief and minimal sagittal area of the vertebral body on the axial CT scan at presentation, after the intervention, at six and 12 months after initial presentation. Results: Vertebroplasty with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) was performed in 30 patients on 39 VBs, including four thoracic vertebras, 27 vertebras of the thoracolumbar jonction and eight lumbar vertebras. Group 2 included 30 patients with 39 OVFs (four thoracic vertebras, 23 vertebras of the thoracolumbar junction and 11 lumbar vertebras). There was no significant difference in VAS scores before treatment (p = 0.229). The mean VAS was 5.90 in Group 1 and 6.28 in Group 2 before the treatment. Mean VAS after vertebroplasty was 0.85 in Group 1. The mean VAS at six months was 0.92 in Group 1 and 3.00 in Group 2 (p < 0.05). The mean VAS at 12 months was 0.92 in Group 1 and 2.36 in Group 2. The mean improvement rate in VAS scores was 84.40% and 62.42%, respectively (p < 0.05). For Group 1, mean area of the VBs measured on sagital CT images was 8.288 at the initial presentation, 8.554 postoperatively, 8.541 at five months and 8.508 at 12 months, respectively, and 8.388 at the initial presentation, 7.976 at six months and 7.585 at 12 months for Group 2 (Fig. 4). Discussions: Although conservative treatment is fundamental and achieves good symptom control, in patients who suffer osteoporotic compression fractures (OCF), the incidence of late collapse is high and the prognosis is poor. In order to relieve the pain and avoid VB collapse, vertebroplasty is the recommended treatment in OCFs. Considering the above findings, the dilemma is whether vertebroplasty can change the natural history (pain and deformity) of OCFs. Conclusion: In our study on OVF, vertebroplasty delivered superior clinical and radiological outcomes over the first year from intervention when compared to conservative treatment of patients with osteoporotic compression fractures without neurological deficit. We believe that the possibility of evolution towards progressive kyphosis is sufficient to justify prophylactic and therapeutic intervention such as vertebroplasty, a minor gesture compared with extensive correction surgery and stabilization.