Balloon kyphoplasty combined with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) for the treatment of osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures has minimum correction loss 2 years after surgery: compared to vertebroplasty using hydroxyapatite block combined with PPS

Abstract

Background: Balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) is a useful treatment performed in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral body fracture (OVF). However, in cases with large intra-vertebral clefts and cases with posterior spinal tissue damage, adjacent vertebral body fractures (AVFs), and cement migration may occur early after BKP, which may be a factor for poor results. In such cases, percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) combined with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) is useful treatment. This study compared BKP combined with PPS (BKP + PPS) compared to PVP using hydroxyapatite (HA) block combined with PPS (HAVP + PPS) for thoracolumbar OVF (TLOVF).Methods: Twenty-eight patients who sustained painful TLOVFs without neurologic deficits underwent HAVP + PPS (group H, n=14) or BKP + PPS (group B, n=14). We evaluated time from injury to surgery, pre-and post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain, wedging angle of fractured vertebra, duration of operation, intraoperative blood loss, number of instrumented vertebra, and length of stay at hospital.Results: Group B had significantly less surgery time and less blood loss during surgery. VAS of low back pain improved equally in both groups, but at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, wedging angle of fractured vertebra progressed significantly in group H compared with group B.Conclusions: PPS fixation combined with percutaneous vertebral cement augmentation with BKP for OVF was suggested to be minimally invasive in the elderly patients. In addition, there is no correction loss of the fractured vertebral body after BKP + PPS, which is considered to be a useful surgical procedure.

Percutaneous treatment for thoraco-lumbar osteoporotic vertebral body fractures (TLOVF): current trends, limitations, and suggested approaches

“…The need for posterior stabilization in osteoporotic fractures is still controversial (11) and only a few comparative studies are available (12). The data seem to conclude that there is no significant difference in pain or ODI.…”

“…Indeed, it can be argued that the osteoporotic nature of the fracture involves a greater risk of mobilization of the posterior wall and leakage of cement into the canal due to the low density of cancellous bone (11). Some studies show better control of PWP with percutaneous implant, probably due to the better allocation of stents or SJ in a craniocaudal direction only, limiting the thrust force against the posterior wall ( 16)…”