Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 9, pp 863–869 | Cite as

Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the management of vertebral osteoporotic fractures. Short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up of 285 patients

  • Salvatore MasalaEmail author
  • Matteo Mammucari
  • Georgios Angelopoulos
  • Roberto Fiori
  • Francesco Massari
  • Skerdilajd Faria
  • Giovanni Simonetti
Scientific Article



To evaluate the short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up of 285 patients who had undergone percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) in our department from 2003 to 2006, and, particularly, to analyse our data on the safety and the usefulness of PVP for durable pain reduction, mobility improvement and the need for analgesic drugs.

Materials and methods

Follow-up analysis was made through a questionnaire completed by the patients before and after PVP (1 week, 1 year and 3 years). The results are reported by subdivision of patients into groups (by gender, age and number of treated vertebrae), with special reference to pain management, drug administration and quality of life.


All patients (285) were followed up for 1 week, 186 for 12 months, and 68 patients were followed up for 3 years. One week after PVP all patients reported normal ambulation (with or without pain), and more than 95% were able to perform activities of daily living (ADL) either without pain or with mild pain. There was no difference in pain relief between the genders after 1 week’s follow up, but after 3 years better analgesia results were observed in women. There was no statistically significant difference in the visual analogue scale (VAS) values before PVP between age groups (P = 0.7) and gender (P = 0.4); Patients younger than 75 years had better outcomes than did older ones (>75 years) at 1 week and 1 year follow up. Patients also reported significant reduction in drug therapy for pain.


PVP is a safe and useful procedure for the treatment of vertebral osteoporotic fractures. It produces enduring pain reduction, improves patients’ mobility and decreases the need for analgesic drugs.


Osteoporosis Vertebral compression fractures Percutaneous vertebroplasty Clinical follow-up 


  1. 1.
    Masala S, Lunardi P, Fiori R, et al. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in the treatment of malignant vertebral fractures. J Chemother 2004; 16 (Suppl 5): 30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melton LJ III, Kan SH, Frye MA, Wahner HW, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL. Epidemiology of vertebral fractures in women. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 129: 1000–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melton LJ III. Epidemiology of spinal osteoporosis. Spine 1997; 22 (Suppl 24): 2S–11S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Watts NB. Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (review). Neurosurg Focus 2001; 15;10 :E12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu SS, Lachmann E, Nagler W. Current medical, rehabilitation, and surgical management of vertebral compression fractures. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2003; 12: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silverman SL. The clinical consequences of vertebral compression fracture. Bone 1992; 13: S27–S31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lykes KW, Gold DT, Shipp KM, Piper CF, Martinez S, Mulhausen PL. Association of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with impaired functional status. Am J Med 1993; 94: 595–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD. Pain and disability associated with new vertebral fractures and other spinal conditions. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Fenton DC, Scribner RM, Reiley ME, Talmadge K. An ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of an inflatable bone tamp used in the treatment of compression fracture. Spine 2001; 26: 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higgins KB, Harten RD, Langrana NA, Reiter MF. Biomechanical effects of unipedicular vertebroplasty on intact vertebrae. Spine 2003; 28: 1540–1547.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tamay-Orozco J, Arzac-Palumbo P, Peon-Vidales H, Mota-Bolfeta R, Fuentes F. Vertebral fractures associated with osteoporosis: patient management. Am J Med 1997; 103: 44S–48S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gangi A, Sabharwal T, Irani FG, Buy X, Morales JP, Adam A. Quality assurance guidelines for percutaneous vertebroplasty. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006; 29: 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maynard AS, Jensen ME, Schweickert PA, Marx WF, Short JP, Kallmes DF. Value of bone scan imaging in predicting pain relief from percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21: 1807–1812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masala S, Schillaci O, Massari F, et al. MRI and bone scan imaging in the preoperative evaluation of painful vertebral fractures treated with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. In Vivo 2005; 19: 1055–1060.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deramond H, Depriester C, Galibert P, Le Gards D. Percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethyl-methacrylate. Technique, indications and result. Radiol Clin North Am 1998; 36: 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gangi A, Guth S, Imbert JP, Marin H, Dietemann JL. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: indications, technique and results. Radiographics 2003; 23: e10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans AJ, Jensen ME, Kip KE, et al. Vertebral compression fractures: pain reduction and improvement in functional mobility after percutaneous polymethylmethacrylate vertebroplasty—retrospective report of 245 cases. Radiology 2003; 226: 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phillips FM. Minimally invasive treatments of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine 2003; 28 (15 Suppl): 45S–53S.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barth RW, Lane JM. Osteoporosis. Orthop Clin North Am 1998; 19: 845–858.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology: vertebral fracture initiative.
  21. 21.
    Kanis JA, Seeman E, Johnell O, Rizzoli R, Delmas P. The perspective of the International Osteoporosis Foundation on the official positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. J Clin Densitom 2005; 8: 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gangi A, Kastler BA, Dietemann JL. Percutaneous vertebroplasty guided by a combination of TC and fluoroscopy AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994; 15: 83–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Masala S, Ciarrapico AM, Konda D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1242–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anselmetti GC, Zoarski G, Manca A, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and bone cement leakage: clinical experience with a new high-viscosity bone cement and delivery system for vertebral augmentation in benign and malignant compression fractures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008; 31: 937–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Masala
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matteo Mammucari
    • 1
  • Georgios Angelopoulos
    • 1
  • Roberto Fiori
    • 1
  • Francesco Massari
    • 1
  • Skerdilajd Faria
    • 2
  • Giovanni Simonetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Molecular Imaging, Interventional Radiology and Radiation TherapyUniversity Hospital of Tor VergataRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care MedicineUniversity Hospital of Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations