Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
The Dynamic Mobility of Vertebral Compression Fractures Volume 18:24-29, 2003 JBMR FERGUS McKIERNAN, RON JENSEN, TOM FRACISZEWSKI Marshfield Clinic, Wisconsin, USA Report: R3 范姜治澐 Supervisor: 李晏瑤主任
2
Introduction Kyphoplasty Restore vertebral height Restore sagittal alignment Reduce chronic morbidity Both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty relieve fracture pain
3
Introduction Dynamic mobility was seen in many vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) Improve sagittal alignment can be also achieved during vertebroplasty To define the magnitude and nature of dynamic mobility
4
Materials & methods 41 patients, 65 VCFs Vertebral fracture pain (local knocking pain), impair activities, failure of medical therapy, technical feasibility, absent of contraindication
5
Pre-op evaluation Standing A-P and lateral view centered on index vertebra Supine cross-table lateral view STIR-MRI 4-in foam bolster Index vertebra
6
Pre-op evaluation Dynamic fracture mobility Non-mobile fixed compression fracture
7
Pre-op evaluation Intravertebral clefts: low resistence, confluented reservoirs for PMMA Intravertebral gas Signal void PMMA fixation
8
Digitizing the lateral view Hp: ab Hm: cd Ha: ef Lateral vertebral area (LVA): ab x ae Kyphotic angle (Ka): intersection of lines ae, bf
9
Pre-op evaluation Fracture severity: Mild (20-25%) Moderate (25-40%) Severe (> 40%)
10
OP method General anesthesia Padded prone in extension Mono- or bi-pedicular or para- pedicular Barium-fortified PMMA Kept supine 4h post-op Dismissed the next day, follow-up 2 weeks later
11
Results 41 patients (28 F, 13 M) 46 procedures, 65 VCFs Mean age: 75.4 y/o Mean fracture age: 117 days 18 patients (44%) had at least one mobile VCF 23 mobile (35%), 42 non-mobile (65%)
12
Results Bimodal distribution (midthoracic and T-L junction) Fracture at T-L junction: 17 of 26 (65%) mobile Intravertebral clefts presented in every mobile fracture, absent in every non-mobile (p<0.001) T-L junctionother Mobile17 (74%)6 Non-mobile9 (21%)33
13
Results 18 of 23 mobile fractures were severe, 5 were moderate Post-opAbsolute increaseP value Hp+ 15% Hm+ 93%P<0.001 Ha+ 106% (42% 70%)8.41 +/- 0.4mmP<0.001 LVA+ 67% (48% 80%)P<0.001 Ka+ 40% (-7.18°)P<0.001
14
Results Mobile fractures underwent vertebroplasty earlier (89 vs 133 days) (p=0.15) 1.33 fractures per patient in patients with mobile fracture 1.83 fractures per patient in patients with only fixed fractures (p=0.29)
15
Results Both mobile and non-mobile fractures reported significant pain relief post-op No clinical adverse events 4 small intradiscal cement leaks, 1 leak into the anterior spinal venous plexus
16
Discussion 1/3 of all fractured vertebrae were mobile Significant improvement in Ha, Hm, LVA and Ka Most mobile fractures occurred at T-L junction (where bears greatest dynamic load) Presence of intravertebral clefts
17
Implications Fracture morphology (crush, biconcave, wedge) and severity need to accommodate the dynamic deformity Vertebral height variance attributed to measurement error or “ rebound ” Epidemiologic miscalculation and erroneous conclusions from therapeutic trials in which VCFs is the primary outcome
18
Discussion Vertebral fracture mobility predicated on the “ permissive ” corticocancellous disruption, whether intrinsic or induced More painful in mobile fractures (afferents from adjacent periosteum and ligment)
19
Discussion Mechanisms of pain relief from vertebroplasty: Mechanical Neurolytic Thermal Chemical Organization of hematoma and cicatrization of surrounding soft tissue result in early pain reduction
20
Discussion Kummel ’ s disease Post-traumatic ischemic necrosis and collapse of vertebral body Osteoporotic elders with T-L junction fractures Risk for delayed ischemic necrosis Intravertebral vacuum cleft = Kummel ’ s sign Shared final pathway for certain high and low energy vertebral injuries
21
Limitation Supine extension radiographic technique needs to be standardized Limited patient numbers
22
Conclusion Dynamic fracture mobility must be considered when performing vertebral augmentation, or any intervention that claims vertebral height restoration
23
Thanks for your attention !!
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.