Cement leakage causes potential thermal injury in vertebroplasty

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Percutaneous vertebroplasty by injecting PMMA bone cement into the fractured vertebrae has been widely accepted in treatment of spinal compression fracture. However, the exothermic polymerization of bone cement may cause osseous or neural tissue injury. This study is thus designed to evaluate the potential risk of thermal damage in percutaneous vertebroplasty.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Twelve porcine vertebrae were immersed in 37°C saline for the experiment. In the first stage of the study, vertebroplasty without cement leakage (control group, n = 6) was simulated. The anterior cortex, foramen, posterior cortex and the center of the vertebral body were selected for temperature measurement. Parameters including peak temperature and duration above 45°C were recorded. In the second stage, a model (n = 6) simulating bone cement leaking into the spinal canal was designed. The methods for temperature measurement were identical to those used in the first stage.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In Stage 1 of the study (vertebroplasty of the porcine vertebral body in the absence of cement leakage), the average maximal temperature at the anterior cortex was 42.4 ± 2.2°C; at the neural foramen 39.5 ± 2.1°C; at the posterior cortex 40.0 ± 2.5°C and at the vertebral center, 68.1 ± 3.4°C. The average time interval above 45°C was 0 seconds at the anterior cortex; at the neural foramen, 0 seconds; at the posterior cortex, 0 seconds and at the vertebral center, 223 seconds. Thus, except at the core of the bone cement, temperatures around the vertebral body did not exceed 45°C. In Stage 2 of the study (cement leakage model), the average maximal temperature at the anterior cortex was 42.7 ± 2.4°C; at the neural foramen, 41.1 ± 0.4°C; at the posterior cortex, 59.1 ± 7.6°C and at the vertebral center, 77.3 ± 5.7°C. The average time interval above 45°C at the anterior cortex was 0 seconds; at the neural foramen, 0 seconds; at the posterior cortex, 329.3 seconds and at the vertebral center, 393.2 seconds. Based on these results, temperatures exceeded 45°C at the posterior cortex and at the vertebral center.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results indicated that, for bone cement confined within the vertebra, curing temperatures do not directly cause thermal injury to the nearby soft tissue. If bone cement leaks into the spinal canal, the exothermic reaction at the posterior cortex might result in thermal injury to the neural tissue.</p

A randomised sham controlled trial of vertebroplasty for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VERTOS IV)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The standard care in patients with a painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is conservative therapy. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV), a minimally invasive technique, is a new treatment option. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) provide conflicting results: two sham-controlled studies showed no benefit of PV while an unmasked but controlled RCT (VERTOS II) found effective pain relief at acceptable costs. The objective of this study is to compare pain relief after PV with a sham intervention in selected patients with an acute osteoporotic VCF using the same strict inclusion criteria as in VERTOS II. Secondary outcome measures are back pain related disability and quality of life.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The VERTOS IV study is a prospective, multicenter RCT with pain relief as primary endpoint. Patients with a painful osteoporotic VCF with bone edema on MR imaging, local back pain for 6 weeks or less, osteopenia and aged 50 years or older, after obtaining informed consent, are included and randomized for PV or a sham intervention. In total 180 patients will be enrolled. Follow-up is at regular intervals during a 1-year period with a standard Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for pain and pain medication. Necessary additional therapies and complications are recorded.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The VERTOS IV study is a methodologically sound RCT designed to assess pain relief after PV compared to a sham intervention in patients with an acute osteoporotic VCF selected on strict inclusion criteria.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov., <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01200277">NCT01200277</a>.</p

Percutaneous vertebral augmentation for painful osteolytic vertebral metastasis: a case report

Giovanni C Anselmetti1, Sean M Tutton2, Francis R Facchini3, Larry E Miller4,5, Jon E Block51Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment, Turin, Italy; 2Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, Milwaukee, WI, USA; 3Interventional Radiology, Interventional Oncology, VIR Chicago, Hinsdale, IL, USA; 4Miller Scientific Consulting, Inc, Arden, NC, USA; 5The Jon Block Group, San Francisco, CA, USAIntroduction: Vertebral metastases are associated with significant pain, disability, and morbidity. Open surgery for fracture stabilization is often inappropriate in this population due to a poor risk-benefit profile, particularly if life expectancy is short. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are appealing adjunctive procedures in patients with malignancy for alleviation of intractable pain. However, these patients have higher risk of serious complications, notably cement extravasation. Described in this report is a case of a painful osteolytic vertebral metastasis that was successfully treated by a novel percutaneous vertebral augmentation system.Case presentation: A 42-year-old Caucasian female presented with a history of metastatic lung cancer unresponsive to radiation and chemotherapy with symptoms inadequately controlled by opiates over the previous 6 months. Magnetic resonance imaging and spiral computed tomography with two-dimensional reconstruction showed an osteolytic vertebral metastasis with complete involvement of the T10 vertebral body, extending to the cortical vertebral wall anteriorly and posteriorly. The patient was treated with percutaneous vertebral augmentation (Kiva&amp;reg; VCF Treatment System, Benvenue Medical, Inc, Santa Clara, CA) utilizing a novel coil-shaped polyetheretherketone implant designed to minimize the risk of cement extravasation. After the minimally invasive procedure, bone cement distribution within the vertebral body was ideal, with no observed cement extravasation. No complications were reported, pain completely resolved within 24 hours, and use of intravenous narcotics was progressively diminished within 1 week. Complete pain relief was maintained throughout 4 months of follow-up.Conclusion: The Kiva System represents a novel and effective minimally invasive treatment option for patients suffering from severe pain due to osteolytic vertebral metastasis.Keywords: Kiva, minimally invasive, pai