Evaluation of pain reduction and height restoration post vertebral augmentation using a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymer implant for the treatment of split (Magerl A2) vertebral fractures: a prospective, long-term, non-randomized study.
Aged
Benzophenones
Biocompatible Materials
/ therapeutic use
Body Height
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Ketones
/ therapeutic use
Lumbar Vertebrae
/ diagnostic imaging
Male
Pain
/ etiology
Pain Management
/ methods
Polyethylene Glycols
/ therapeutic use
Polymers
Prospective Studies
Radiography
Spinal Fractures
/ complications
Thoracic Vertebrae
/ diagnostic imaging
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Vertebroplasty
/ methods
PEEK
Spinal fracture
Vertebroplasty
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
14
08
2018
accepted:
25
10
2018
revised:
05
10
2018
pubmed:
5
12
2018
medline:
16
11
2019
entrez:
5
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purposes of the study were to evaluate the safety and long-term efficacy of augmented vertebroplasty using a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implant, for the treatment of lumbar or thoracic vertebral fractures (A2 according to the Magerl's AO classification) and to analyze pain reduction, height restoration, and complications during a 2-year follow-up period. Prospective non-randomized evaluation was performed for 21 painful split vertebral fractures (20 patients, 14 females, 6 males; mean age 72.80 ± 10.991) treated with percutaneous vertebral augmentation using a PEEK device, under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain before the procedure and after 6, 12, and 24 months was evaluated using a numeric visual scale (NVS) questionnaire. Imaging was performed by CT and X-rays. The minimum craniocaudal diameter at the level of the fracture and the maximum craniocaudal diameter at the middle of the fractured vertebra were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate pain decrease and height restoration. Successful implant positioning was achieved in all cases. No major clinical complications were observed. Comparing the mean pain scores at baseline (8.69 ± 1.138) and the first day after the treatment (1.19 ± 1.424), there was a decrease of 7.50 NVS units (p < 0.001). Minimum and maximum vertebral body heights were increased after the procedure 56.58% and 13.7% respectively (p < 0.001). Both pain relief and height restoration remained statistically significant (p < 0.001) during the follow-up period. A2 Magerl thoracic or lumbar fractures could be successfully treated with PEEK implant-assisted vertebral augmentation. Randomized studies with larger sample sizes should be done to confirm the effectiveness of the technique. • Vertebral augmentation using a PEEK implant for the treatment of A2 Magerl lumbar or thoracic vertebral fractures seems to be effective both in terms of pain reduction and height restoration. • Effects on pain reduction and height restoration have a long-term duration. • The technique seems to be safe for the treatment of A2 Magerl fractures, without major complications in our study group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30511178
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5867-3
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5867-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Benzophenones
0
Biocompatible Materials
0
Ketones
0
Polymers
0
polyetheretherketone
31694-16-3
Polyethylene Glycols
3WJQ0SDW1A
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4050-4057Références
Int Orthop. 1999;23(2):87-90
pubmed: 10422022
Eur Spine J. 2002 Dec;11(6):594-8
pubmed: 12522719
Eur J Radiol. 2005 Sep;55(3):362-83
pubmed: 16129245
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006 Jul-Aug;29(4):580-5
pubmed: 16565797
Osteoporos Int. 2009 Mar;20(3):473-80
pubmed: 18636218
Eur Spine J. 2010 Mar;19 Suppl 1:S2-7
pubmed: 19851793
Eur Spine J. 2010 Nov;19(11):1907-12
pubmed: 20559850
Radiology. 2012 Jul;264(1):180-6
pubmed: 22723562
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013 Feb;36(1):183-91
pubmed: 22735889
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 15;38(4):292-9
pubmed: 23407406
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Feb;37(1):193-202
pubmed: 23652416
Pain Physician. 2013 Jul-Aug;16(4):E397-404
pubmed: 23877463
Pain Physician. 2013 Sep-Oct;16(5):E505-12
pubmed: 24077200
J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2012 Jul;3(2):47-51
pubmed: 24082683
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jan;83(1):173-8
pubmed: 24161783
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014 Feb;25(2):171-81
pubmed: 24325929
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Oct;37(5):1363-8
pubmed: 24482031
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2014 Jul;18(3):309-17
pubmed: 24896746
Asian Spine J. 2015 Feb;9(1):133-46
pubmed: 25705347
SAS J. 2011 Dec 01;5(4):114-9
pubmed: 25802677
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jun 15;40(12):865-75
pubmed: 25822543
Pain Physician. 2015 May-Jun;18(3):E299-306
pubmed: 26000677
Lancet. 2016 Oct 1;388(10052):1408-1416
pubmed: 27544377
Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1512-1516
pubmed: 27553927
J Spine Surg. 2016 Mar;2(1):13-20
pubmed: 27683690
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 Mar;40(3):331-342
pubmed: 28105496
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 Aug;40(8):1141-1146
pubmed: 28584945
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2870-2871
pubmed: 29383527
Eur Radiol. 2018 Dec;28(12):4985-4991
pubmed: 29948067
Eur Spine J. 1994;3(4):184-201
pubmed: 7866834