A comparative study of high-viscosity cement percutaneous vertebroplasty vs. low-viscosity cement percutaneous kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

Author(s):  
Kai Sun ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
Hao Peng ◽  
Jun-feng Tan ◽  
Mi Zhang ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunpeng Li ◽  
Changbin Ji ◽  
Dawei Luo ◽  
Wen Zhang ◽  
Hongyong Feng ◽  
...  

AbstractSevere osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) were considered as relative or even absolute contraindication for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty and these relevant reports are very limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty with high-viscosity cement and conventional kyphoplasty in managing severe OVCFs. 37 patients of severe OVCFs experiencing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty were reviewed and divided into two groups, according to the procedural technique, 18 in high-viscosity cement percutaneous vertebroplasty (hPVP) group and 19 in conventional percutaneous kyphoplasty (cPKP) group. The operative time, and injected bone cement volume were recorded. Anterior vertebral height (AVH), Cobb angle and cement leakage were also evaluated in the radiograph. The rate of cement leakage was lower in hPVP group, compared with cPKP group (16.7% vs 47.4%, P = 0.046). The patients in cPKP group achieved more improvement in AVH and Cobb angle than those in hPVP group postoperatively (37.2 ± 7.9% vs 43.0 ± 8.9% for AVH, P = 0.044; 15.5 ± 4.7 vs 12.7 ± 3.3, for Cobb angle, P = 0.042). At one year postoperatively, there was difference observed in AVH between two groups (34.1 ± 7.4 vs 40.5 ± 8.7 for hPVP and cPKP groups, P = 0.021), but no difference was found in Cobb angle (16.6 ± 5.0 vs 13.8 ± 3.8, P = 0.068). Similar cement volume was injected in two groups (2.9 ± 0.5 ml vs 2.8 ± 0.6 ml, P = 0.511). However, the operative time was 37.8 ± 6.8 min in the hPVP group, which was shorter than that in the cPKP group (43.8 ± 8.2 min, P = 0.021). In conclusion, conventional PKP achieved better in restoring anterior vertebral height and improving kyphotic angle, but PVP with high-viscosity cement had lower rate of cement leakage and shorter operative time with similar volume of injected cement.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arun Paul Amar ◽  
Donald W. Larsen ◽  
George P. Teitelbaum

Abstract OBJECTIVE Percutaneous kyphoplasty is postulated to have several advantages over percutaneous vertebroplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures and is gaining increased popularity. However, cement delivery with the KyphX kit (Kyphon, Inc., Santa Clara, CA), the only commercially available device for percutaneous kyphoplasty, is relatively problematic. This kit uses a series of “bone filler device” (BFD) tubes. Each BFD must be loaded manually with cement, which is then injected into the kyphoplasty cavity by manually depressing an inner stylet. The high profile of the BFD cannulas and their stylets requires frequent repositioning of the image intensifier tube and table. Because each accommodates only a small volume, the BFDs must be exchanged frequently. This delivery method also places the operator's hands directly in the field of radiation. We sought to overcome these limitations. METHODS Dissatisfied with the shortcomings of the BFDs, we substituted the EZflow screw-syringe injector (Parallax Medical, Mountain View, CA) we use to deliver cement during conventional percutaneous vertebroplasty. This amalgam of the KyphX kit and the screw-syringe injector has been used for kyphoplasty treatment of 26 thoracolumbar compression fractures in 17 patients. RESULTS The screw-syringe injector allows controlled volumetric delivery of large boluses of high-viscosity cement without having to refill the reservoir. It minimizes radiation exposure and does not require repositioning of the x-ray tubes. It may theoretically allow decompression should cement extrusion occur. Also, it delivers cement to the interstices of bony trabeculae outside the kyphoplasty cavity, thus combining the mechanical benefits of percutaneous kyphoplasty and percutaneous vertebroplasty. CONCLUSION The use of a screw-syringe injector has several merits over the customary means of cement delivery during kyphoplasty.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-sheng Gou ◽  
Yue Hu ◽  
Hai-bo Li ◽  
Bo-lin fu ◽  
Zheng Che

Abstract Background: Percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) or percutaneous vertebral plasty (PVP) has been widely applied in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (osteoporotic vertebral compression will fracture, OVCF) because of its minimally invasive and effective. To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty versus percutaneous kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with posterior wall broken. Methods: 82 patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture with posterior wall broken were divided into PVP group(group A) and PKP group(group B).The operation time, perspective times, bone cement volume injected. cement leakage, hospitalization expenses, preoperative visual analog score(VAS) and Oswestry disability index(ODI), restoration height of vertebral, the vertebrae height loss and new fracture of adjacent vertebra were evaluated during the follow-up. Results: The PVP group incurred significantly shorter operation time(40.37 ±8.26 min) and less perspective times (22.23 ±3.79 times)than the PKP group(46.74 ±9.58 min and 27.96 ±5.71 times respectively)( P<0.05). The PVP group incurred significantly less expenses than the PKP group(P<0.05). The VAS scores and ODI at 1 day and 6 months post-operation were significantly lower than pre-operation in both groups(P<0.05). Conclusion: Both PVP and PKP Can obtain satisfactory clinical efficacy for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with posterior wall broken,but the former may have advantages of less expenses,shorter operation time. Trial registration: This retrospective study was approved by the ethics committee of the first people's hospital of shuangliu district, Chengdu, Moreover, this study was also registered in the Chinese clinical trial registry with the registration number of ChiCTR1900028176.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document