Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739375
Percutaneous Vertebroplasty: Efficacy of Unipedicular Vertebroplasty as Compared to Bipedicular Vertebroplasty
Authors
Funding Source None.
Abstract
Introduction Percutaneous vertebroplasty has been used for treatment of intractable painful fractures of vertebral bodies. With the help of refined procedures and standard techniques, the interventional radiologist can now offer help to orthopedics and neurosurgeons in these cases, which include treatment of vertebral compression fracture. Vertebroplasty is aimed at reducing the pain induced by collapse. Vertebroplasty is the standard mode of treatment for vertebral collapse, and in our study, bipedicular vertebroplasty was compared with unipedicular approach as bipedicular vertebroplasty is the routinely used approach.
Aim To compare efficacy of unipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty with that of bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty.
Material and Methods A total of 52 vertebroplasties were done over a period of 2 years. Out of 52 patients, 28 patients underwent unipedicular vertebroplasty and 24 patients underwent bipedicular vertebroplasty. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were used to assess the pain prior to vertebroplasty and after vertebroplasty. Efficacy of the two procedures were assessed by comparing VAS scores.
Results There was no statistically significant difference observed in the preprocedure and postprocedure VAS scores (p-value < 0.0001, < 0.0001, respectively). The mean procedure time was lesser in unipedicular vertebroplasty (41.9 ± 3.90) than bipedicular vertebroplasty (54.5 ± 3.4).
Conclusion Unipedicular vertebroplasty is as effective as bipedicular vertebroplasty, as there is insignificant difference in postprocedure VAS scores between the unipedicular and bipedicular vertebroplasty.
Keywords
Bipedicular vertebroplasty - Percutaneous Vertebroplasty - Unipedicular vertebroplasty - Visual analogue scalePublication History
Article published online:
10 January 2022
© 2022. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Panda A, Das CJ, Baruah U. Imaging of vertebral fractures. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2014; 18 (03) 295-303
- 2 World Health Organization. Prevention and management of osteoporosis. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2003; 921: 1-164
- 3 Marwaha RK, Tandon N, Gupta Y. et al. The prevalence of and risk factors for radiographic vertebral fractures in older Indian women and men: Delhi Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (DeVOS). Arch Osteoporos 2012; 7 (1–2): 201-207
- 4 Baur-Melnyk A. Malignant versus benign vertebral collapse: are new imaging techniques useful?. Cancer Imaging 2009; 9 Spec No A (Special issue A): S49-S51
- 5 Coleman RE. Skeletal complications of malignancy. Cancer 1997; 80 (8, Suppl) 1588-1594
- 6 Porter BA, Shields AF, Olson DO. Magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow disorders. Radiol Clin North Am 1986; 24 (02) 269-289
- 7 Mauch JT, Carr CM, Cloft H, Diehn FE. Review of the imaging features of benign osteoporotic and malignant vertebral compression fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018; 39 (09) 1584-1592
- 8 Khurana B, Sheehan SE, Sodickson A, Bono CM, Harris MB. Traumatic thoracolumbar spine injuries: what the spine surgeon wants to know. Radiographics 2013; 33 (07) 2031-2046
- 9 Nairn RJ, Binkhamis S, Sheikh A. Current perspectives on percutaneous vertebroplasty: current evidence/controversies, patient selection and assessment, and technique and complications. Radiol Res Pract 2011; 2011: 175079
- 10 Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le Gars D. [Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty]. Neurochirurgie 1987; 33 (02) 166-168
- 11 Jensen ME, Evans AJ, Mathis JM, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Dion JE. Percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: technical aspects. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997; 18 (10) 1897-1904
- 12 Mathis JM, Barr JD, Belkoff SM, Barr MS, Jensen ME, Deramond H. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: a developing standard of care for vertebral compression fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001; 22 (02) 373-381
- 13 Zhang L, Liu Z, Wang J. et al. Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015; 16 (01) 145
- 14 Truumees E, Hilibrand A, Vaccaro AR. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Spine J 2004; 4 (02) 218-229
- 15 Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J. et al. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 376 (9746): 1085-1092
- 16 Cotten A, Boutry N, Cortet B. et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: state of the art. Radiographics 1998; 18 (02) 311-320 , discussion 320–323
- 17 Jensen ME, Dion JE. Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2000; 10 (03) 547-568
- 18 Song BK, Eun JP, Oh YM. Clinical and radiological comparison of unipedicular versus bipedicular balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures. Osteoporos Int 2009; 20 (10) 1717-1723
- 19 Chen C, Bian J, Zhang W, Zhang W, Zhao C, Wei H. Unilateral versus bilateral vertebroplasty for severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014; 27 (08) E301-E304

