Efficacy of the Vertebral Body Stenting System for the Restoration of Vertebral Height in Acute Traumatic Compression Fractures in a Non-osteoporotic Population
- 2 Downloads
To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous image-guided vertebral body stenting (VBS) at restoring vertebral height in acute, stable, traumatic thoracolumbar fractures in a young, non-osteoporotic population.
Materials and Methods
A single-centre retrospective review of all traumatic non-osteoporotic fractures treated with VBS between 2010 and 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included patients with recent (< 10 days), symptomatic and stable thoracolumbar compression fractures. Patients with low-energy fractures, osteoporosis and age > 60/50 years (male/female) were excluded. Primary outcomes included: correction of vertebral height, correction of kyphosis angle and Beck Index on reconstructed pre- and post-procedural CBCT images. Secondary outcomes included intra-procedural stent recoil, complications, cement leakage and factors predicting height restoration.
Thirty-nine patients (26 men, 13 women; mean age 33.6 years, range 15–57 years) underwent VBS 5 days post-trauma on average (range 1–10), for stable compression fractures located between T5 and L5. Mean vertebral height gain, vertebral kyphosis angle correction and Beck index improvement were 3.8 mm (95% CI 3.36–4.50; P(> 3 mm) = 99.9%), 4.3° (95% CI 3.50–5.20; P(> 3°) = 99.9%) and 0.07 [95% CI 0.053–0.11], respectively (all statistically significant). Technical success was 92%, with 3 “major” stent recoils resulting in loss of vertebral height correction. No symptomatic complications were observed. No predictive factors for procedural success were identified.
VBS can significantly restore vertebral height in young patients with traumatic vertebral compression fractures.
KeywordsCompression fractures Stentoplasty Vertebroplasty Vertebral body stenting
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 6.de Falco R, Scarano E, Di Celmo D, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty in traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar junction. Preliminary experience in 12 cases. J Neurosurg Sci. 2005;49(4):147–53.Google Scholar
- 9.Verlaan JJ, Somers I, Dhert WJ, et al. Clinical and radiological results 6 years after treatment of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures with pedicle screw instrumentation and balloon assisted endplate reduction. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1172–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.11.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Wang H, Sribastav SS, Ye F, et al. Comparison of percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of single level vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of the literature. Pain Phys. 2015;18(3):209–22.Google Scholar
- 16.Verlaan JJ, van de Kraats EB, Oner FC, et al. The reduction of endplate fractures during balloon vertebroplasty: a detailed radiological analysis of the treatment of burst fractures using pedicle screws, balloon vertebroplasty, and calcium phosphate cement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(16):1840–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Beck E. Radiographic measuring methods in vertebral fractures. Hefte zur Unfallheilkunde. 1971;108:36–7.Google Scholar
- 29.Piazzolla A, De Giorgi S, Solarino G, et al. Vertebral body reconstruction system B-Twin(R) versus corset following non-osteoporotic Magerl A.12 thoracic and lumbar fracture. Functional and radiological outcome at 12 month follow-up in a prospective randomized series of 50 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR. 2011;97(8):846–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Matejka J, Zeman J, Belatka J, et al. Vertebral body augmentation using a vertebral body stent. Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca. 2011;78(5):442–6.Google Scholar
- 47.Martelli N, Devaux C, van den Brink H, Pineau J, Prognon P, Borget I. A systematic review of the level of evidence in economic evaluations of medical devices: the example of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0144892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar