Biomechanical evaluation of kyphoplasty with calcium sulfate cement in a cadaveric osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture model

Vertebroplasty with self-locking hexagonal metal implants shows comparable primary and secondary stiffness to PMMA cement augmentation techniques in a biomechanical vertebral compression fracture model

“…While secondary ingrowth of Spine Pearls has to be proven in future animal and clinical studies, the cement alternative with conventional bioresorbable cements have shown incoherent results. Although in vitro experiments demonstrated comparable strength of bioresorbable cements to PMMA augmentation [26,32,34], clinical trials evidenced reduced radiopacity, handling problems [12] and a higher failure rate following injection [14]. However, in this in vitro study the introduced new implant demonstrated comparable results in biomechanical primary and secondary stability to the clinically wellestablished techniques of vertebroplasty and PMMA cavity.…”

Posterior instrumentation with transpedicular calcium sulphate graft for thoracolumbar burst fracture

“…The experimental results showed that calcium sulphate cement for kyphoplasty achieves vertebral body strength and stiffness comparable to that of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). These results suggest that calcium sulphate cement can provide adequate structure support immediately after surgery [23]. Given these encouraging reports and the increasing experience of this medical team in using injectable calcium sulphate cement to treat metaphysis fractures of long bones (distal radial fracture or proximal tibia fracture), we hypothesised that calcium sulphate grafting to a fractured vertebral body following short-segment posterior instrumentation could provide initial strength to support the anterior spinal column and improve healing of the fractured body by enhancing osteoconductive ability.…”

Treatment of typical amyelic somatic fractures with kyphoplasty and calcium phosphate cement: a critical analysis

“…With regard to the results, the literature data are controversial. After the initial optimism in which the biomechanical characteristics of the CPC were described as comparable to those of the PMMA [5][6][7], in contrast other recently published articles underline the poor biomechanical and osteotintegrative characteristics of CPC [8][9][10][11]. In spite of the simple procedure with the encouraging initial impression, the results obtained by us show a poor result of kyphoplasty with CPC in the treatment of type A fractures, in particular because of the loss of both the local and the regional kyphosis angles in the postoperative period: the contemporary reduction of these two angles seems to exclude the role of the intervertebral discs (eventually damaged during the trauma) in the poor results obtained, incriminating hence the biomechanical characteristics of the CPC.…”