Predictive factors for sustained pain after (sub)acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures:Combined results from the VERTOS II and VERTOS IV trial

PURPOSE: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are treated conservatively or in selected cases with percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV). The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to determine predictive factors for a high visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score after conservative, sham or PV and is based on previously published randomized trials. METHODS: The VERTOS II compared conservative versus PV, and VERTOS IV compared sham versus PV treatment. The conservative group received pain medication. The sham and PV group received subcutaneous lidocaine/bupivacaine. In addition, the PV group received cementation, which was simulated in the sham group. Nineteen different predictors of high (≥ 5) versus low ( 8, long-term baseline pain, mild/severe Genant and new fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant more patients had a high pain score at 12 months in the sham and conservative group when compared with the PV group. Five predictors were identified for sustained high local back pain, regardless of the received treatment. Patients with moderate fracture deformity were less likely to have high pain scores at 12 months if they received PV than if they had sham or conservative therapy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00270-022-03170-7

Predictive factors for sustained pain after (sub)acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: Combined results from the VERTOS II and VERTOS IV trial

Purpose Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are treated conservatively or in selected cases with percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV). The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to determine predictive factors for a high visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score after conservative, sham or PV and is based on previously published randomized trials. Methods The VERTOS II compared conservative versus PV, and VERTOS IV compared sham versus PV treatment. The conservative group received pain medication. The sham and PV group received subcutaneous lidocaine/bupivacaine. In addition, the PV group received cementation, which was simulated in the sham group. Nineteen different predictors of high (>= 5) versus low (= 5 at the 12-month, compared to 40.1% in the conservative or sham group, with a significant difference (chi(2)(1) = 15.26, p = 5 after 12 months follow-up), namely: female, baseline VAS > 8, long-term baseline pain, mild/severe Genant and new fractures. Conclusions Statistically significant more patients had a high pain score at 12 months in the sham and conservative group when compared with the PV group. Five predictors were identified for sustained high local back pain, regardless of the received treatment. Patients with moderate fracture deformity were less likely to have high pain scores at 12 months if they received PV than if they had sham or conservative therapy

Percutaneous vertebroplasty is no risk factor for new vertebral fractures and protects against further height loss (VERTOS IV)

Background: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) is an alternative option to treat pain after an osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). Controversy exists as to whether PV increases the risk of new OVCFs or prevents further vertebral height loss in treated levels. We assessed both during 1-year follow-up in patients with acute OVCF randomised to PV or a sham procedure. Mehods: VERTOS IV is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing PV with sham therapy in 180 patients. NewOVCFs and further vertebral height loss were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: After a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range (IQR) = 12-12) 31 new fractures were reported in 15 patients from the PV group and 28 new fractures in 19 patients from the sham group. The occurrence of new vertebral fractures did not significantly differ between the groups (χ2(1) = 0.83, p = 0.36, OR = .71, 95%CI = 0.33-1.50). There was no higher fracture risk of adjacent versus distant vertebrae. After sham procedure, further height loss of treated vertebrae occurred more frequently (7 patients (8%) in the PV group and 39 (45%) in the sham group (χ2(1) = 28.85, p < 0.001, OR = 9.84, 95%CI = 4.08-23.73)) and was more severe (p < .001) than after PV. Conclusions: The risk of further vertebral height loss is significantly lower after PV compared to a sham intervention, i.e. PV protectsagainst progressive vertebral height loss. In addition, PV does not increase the risk of new adjacent and distant OVCFs