Pros and Cons? Insight of Vertebroplasty and Clinical Application

juikuohung 1,617 views 67 slides Jul 18, 2013
Slide 1
Slide 1 of 67
Slide 1
1
Slide 2
2
Slide 3
3
Slide 4
4
Slide 5
5
Slide 6
6
Slide 7
7
Slide 8
8
Slide 9
9
Slide 10
10
Slide 11
11
Slide 12
12
Slide 13
13
Slide 14
14
Slide 15
15
Slide 16
16
Slide 17
17
Slide 18
18
Slide 19
19
Slide 20
20
Slide 21
21
Slide 22
22
Slide 23
23
Slide 24
24
Slide 25
25
Slide 26
26
Slide 27
27
Slide 28
28
Slide 29
29
Slide 30
30
Slide 31
31
Slide 32
32
Slide 33
33
Slide 34
34
Slide 35
35
Slide 36
36
Slide 37
37
Slide 38
38
Slide 39
39
Slide 40
40
Slide 41
41
Slide 42
42
Slide 43
43
Slide 44
44
Slide 45
45
Slide 46
46
Slide 47
47
Slide 48
48
Slide 49
49
Slide 50
50
Slide 51
51
Slide 52
52
Slide 53
53
Slide 54
54
Slide 55
55
Slide 56
56
Slide 57
57
Slide 58
58
Slide 59
59
Slide 60
60
Slide 61
61
Slide 62
62
Slide 63
63
Slide 64
64
Slide 65
65
Slide 66
66
Slide 67
67

About This Presentation

Insight of Vertebroplasty and Clinical Application


Slide Content

JUI-KUO HUNG MD,MHA
Changhua Christian Hospital
Department of Orthopedic Surgery
Pros and Cons?
Insight of Vertebroplasty
and Clinical Application

Vertebroplasty
•Controversial topics
–Opposition faction
–Support faction
•Overview
–Indication/Contraindication
–Complication
–Efficacy
•Still a debate !

Controversial Topics
-- Opposition Faction --

Controversial Topics
-- Opposition Faction --

Controversial Topics
-- Opposition Faction --

Controversial Topics
-- Support Faction --

Controversial Topics
-- Support Faction --

Controversial Topics
-- Support Faction --

•Patient Selection
–Fracture acuity
–Enrollment
–Control group
–Outcome
•Conclusion
Controversial Topics
-- Support Faction --

Patient Selection
-- Fracture Acuity --
•Acuity of VCF
–Influence the results of cement augmentation
•Positive response to VP on MRI image
–Decreased signal on T1-weighrted image
–Increased signal on T2 or a fat-suppressed image
•Pain from osteoporotic VCFs substantially
diminishes over time

•Improper inclusion criteria
–Fracture edema or a fracture line detected on MRI
–Q:Fracture line is unclear if this is the sign of acute
fracture
•Improper definition of acute fracture
– Fracture less than one year in the studies
•32% < 6 weeks in Buchbinder et al., 44% in Kallmes et al.
–Q:Most-defined acute fracture:< 4~6 weeks
–Inconsistency between previous and current studies
Patient Selection
-- Fracture Acuity --

•Enrolling patients if a PRCT is difficult
–Selection bias
–Kallmes et al.
•131/1812
–Buchbinder et al.
•78 patients in 4.5 years at four high volume centers
•Unquantifiable selection bias
–Small sample size
Patient Selection
-- Enrollment --

•Bias of sham procedure
•Origin of back pain in VCF patients
–Osteoporotic VCF
–DJD, facet arthritis, muscle fatigue….
•Sham procedure
–Injection of anesthetic to facet capsule/periosteum
–Cause of pain relief?
•Perhaps dry needle injection is better
Patient Selection
-- Control Group --

•Overall back pain in Buchbinder’s study
–True fracture pain ?
–General body pain ?
•Average pain reduction of VAS
–-3 at one month follow up in Kallmes
–-2.3 in Buchbinder
–Similar other PRCT studies
–Different explanation in conclusion
Patient Selection
-- Outcome --

Conclusion

Controversial Topics
-- Opposition Faction --

Treating spinal compression fractures
New guideline recommends against use of
vertebroplasty

Recommendation 1
-- Moderate Strength --
•We suggest patients who present with an
osteoporotic spinal compression fracture on
imaging with correlating clinical signs and
moderate symptoms suggesting an acute injury
(0–5 days after identifiable event or onset of
symptoms) and who are neurologically intact be
treated with calcitonin for 4 weeks.

•Ibandronate and strontium relanate are
options to prevent additional symptomatic
fractures in patients who present with an
osteoporotic spinal compression fracture on
imaging with correlating clinical signs and
symptoms.
Recommendation 2
-- Weak Strength --

•We are unable to recommend for or against
bed rest, complementary and alternative
medicine or opioids/analgesics for patients
who present with an osteoporotic spinal
compression fracture on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms and
who are neurologically intact.
Recommendation 3
-- Inconclusive --

•It is an option to treat patients who present
with an osteoporotic spinal compression
fracture at L3 or L4 on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms
suggesting an acute injury and who are
neurologically intact with an L2 nerve root
block.
Recommendation 4
-- Weak Strength --

L2 Spinal Nerve-Block Effects on Acute Low Back Pain
From Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture
Ohtori S, Yamashita M, Inoue G et al.
J Pain 2009;10(8):870-875.

•We are unable to recommend for or against
treatment with a brace for patients who
present with an osteoporotic spinal
compression fracture on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms and
who are neurologically intact.
Recommendation 5
-- Inconclusive Strength --

•We are unable to recommend for or against a
supervised or unsupervised exercise
program for patients who present with an
osteoporotic
spinal compression fracture on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms and
who are neurologically intact.
Recommendation 6
-- Inconclusive Strength --

•We are unable to recommend for or against
electrical stimulation for patients who present
with an osteoporotic spinal compression
fracture on imaging with correlating clinical
signs and symptoms and who are
neurologically intact.
Recommendation 7
-- Inconclusive Strength --

•We recommend against vertebroplasty for
patients who present with an osteoporotic
spinal compression fracture on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms and
who are neurologically intact.
Recommendation 8
-- Strong Strength --

•Kyphoplasty is an option for patients who
present with an osteoporotic spinal
compression fracture on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms and
who are neurologically intact.
Recommendation 9
-- Weak Strength --

•We are unable to recommend for or against
improvement of kyphosis angle in the
treatment of patients who present with an
osteoporotic spinal compression fracture on
imaging with correlating clinical signs and
symptoms and who are neurologically intact.
Recommendation 10
-- Inconclusive Strength --

•We are unable to recommend for or against
any specific treatment for patients who
present with an osteoporotic spinal
compression fracture on imaging with
correlating clinical signs and symptoms and
who are not neurologically intact.
Recommendation 11
-- Inconclusive Strength --

History
•Galibert in 1984
–Amiens, France
–First reported case of VP
–50 year-old female with
neck pain due to a cervical
(C2) hemangioma

Indication
•Painful vertebra
–Osteoporotic fracture
–Neoplastic fracture
–Tumor infiltration
–Traumatic fracture
•Expanded indication
–Augmented instrumentation
–Prevention of adjacent fracture

Patient Selection
-- Better Response --
•Single level or only a couple of levels
•Focal pain and tenderness corresponding to
the level of edema by MRI
•Fracture present <2 months or recent
worsening of fracture
•Fracture limits activity
•No sclerosis of fractured vertebra

•Fracture present for >1 year
•Other causes for back pain
–Disc herniation, spinal stenosis,
facet or SI joint disease
–Structural imbalance
•Kyphosis
•Scoliosis
•–Radicular pain related to disc herniation
Patient Selection
-- Uncertain Response --

Neoplastic Compression Fracture
•Treat to alleviate pain
•Stabilize vulnerable vertebrae
•Opportunity to obtain biopsy
•Amount of pain reduction may be less than
osteoporotic compression fractures
•Greater risk for complications
–Pulmonary embolism
–Cardiovascular compromise

Contraindication
•Uncorrected coagulopathy
–Pathologic
–Iatrogenic
• Infection
–Spine
–Elsewhere

Patient Selection Criteria
•Painful fracture not responding after 4 weeks
of treatment
–How about acute fracture
•Acute or subacute compression fracture(s)
on plain radiographs or MRI
–Fracture cleft
•Pain corresponding to level of the fracture
﹖﹖

Imaging Evaluation
•Radiographs
–Compare with any prior
studies
•MRI
–T1, T2, STIR sequences
–Assess for vertebral body
marrow edema
–Exclude stenosis due to
disc and/or facet disease

Imaging Evaluation
•Computed tomography
–If MRI contraindicated
–Assesses cortical
integrity of posterior
vertebral body and
pedicles
•Bone scan
–If MRI cont raindicated
–With SPECT
–Often performed as part
of a metastatic workup

Complication
•Incidence
–Minor complications: 1-5%
–Major complications: <<1%
–Higher for metastases: 10%
•Majority of complications are transient and
self-limited
•Steroid therapy or surgery are rarely required

Complication
•Hemorrhage
–Rare
•Infection
–Rare
•Pulmonary embolism
•Fracture
–Lamina
–Pedicle
•Increased pain
–1~2%
•Death

Complication
•Spinal cord or nerve root injury
–< 1%
–Direct
•Puncture
–Indirect
•Compression
•Hematoma
•Ischemia
•Thermal injury

Complication
•Symptomatic cement extravasation
–Incidence: depends upon etiology of fracture
•Osteoporosis 1-2% (?)
•Neoplasm 5-10% (?)
•Location
–Epidural
–Foraminal
–Paravertebral
–Disc

Complication
-- Cement Implantation Syndrome --
•Cardiopulmonary collapse
–Right heart failure and pulmonary hypertension
–Obese
•Time-limited phenomenon
–Early and aggressive hemodynamic support
–Acute pulmonary hypertension and secondary
RV failure are reversible
•Good luck is absolutely necessary !!

EFFICACY?

Efficacy of Vertebroplasty
Zoarski et al.
•Osteoporotic compression fracture
–75-90% of patients experience dramatic or
complete relief of pain within several to 72 hours
•Neoplastic compression fracture
–59-86% of patients experience marked reduction
in narcotic requirements or complete pain relief

Efficacy of Vertebroplasty
Zoarski et al.
•30 pts, 54 fractures
•questionnaire pre- and post-procedure
•80% improved
•15-18 month follow-up: 22 of 23 patients
reported continued pain relief and
satisfaction with procedure.
•Pain improved (P<0.0001)

•488 patients, 245 responding
•Phone interview average 7 months post-OP
•Pain: 8.9 →3.4 (P<0.001)
•Impaired ambulation: 72%→28% (P<0.001)
•Ability to perform ADL improved (P<0.001)
Efficacy of Vertebroplasty
Evans et al.

•MD Anderson cancer center
•56 patients (21 myeloma, 35 other)
•97 procedures, all fractures
•Recorded:
–VAS: pain, medication use, neurologic status and Pre-
post op 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 months
•Improvement or complete pain relief 84%
•No change 9%
•Not available 7%
•None worse
Efficacy of Vertebroplasty
Fourney et al.

Efficacy of Vertebroplasty
Fourney et al.
•Median pre-op VAS 7
•Median post-op VAS 2 (p<0.001)
•Pain reduction significant at each follow-up
interval through one year

Timing of Intervention

Early Intervention
-- May Reduce --
•Duration of acute pain
•Medication use
•Duration of
immobilization
•Occurrence of chronic
back pain
•Further collapse of the
treated vertebral body
•Height loss
•Kyphosis
•Incidence of pulmonary
embolism and
pneumonia

Early Intervention
•Diminishes analgesic use
•Facilitates quicker hospital discharge
•Lasting improvement (Trout AL. AJNR 2005; 26:1629-1633)
•But: Early intervention may not produce
better results than conservative care (Diamond TH.
MJA 2006; 184:113-117)

Thank You !
Tags