Treatment of cement dislodgement after vertebral augmentation / 中华创伤骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To analyze the clinical efficacy of treatment of cement dislodgement after vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the data of 13 patients who had been treated at Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University for cement dislodgement after vertebral augmentation for osteoporotic vertebral fractures from July 2013 to July 2022. There were 4 males and 9 females, with an average age of (76.5±8.6) years and a T value of bone mineral density of -3.3±0.6. By the CT and MRI features of cement dislodgement, their conditions fell in 4 types cement loosening in situ (4 cases), anterior cement moving (6 cases), anterior cement moving with posterior bone mass moving (2 cases), and posterior cement moving (1 case). They were treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty (3 cases), pedicle screw fixation combined with bone graft fusion and decompression (7 cases), and conservative therapy (3 cases). The curative effects for surgical patients were evaluated by comparing their visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) and cobb angle of kyphosis at preoperation, 1 week and 1 month postoperation, and the last follow-up, and Frankel grading for nerve injury as well. The curative effects for patients undergoing conservative treatment were evaluated by observing their symptoms.Results:This cohort was followed up for 7 (5, 12) months after treatment. The VAS scores [5.0 (4.0, 5.0) points, 3.0 (2.0, 3.0) points, and 3.0 (2.0, 3.0) points] in the 10 surgical patients at 1 week and 1 month postoperation and the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with the preoperative value [8.5 (8.0, 9.0) points] ( P<0.05); the VAS scores at 1 month postoperation and the last follow-up were also significantly improved compared with that at 1 week postoperation ( P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the last follow-up and 1 month postoperation ( P > 0.05). The ODIs (50.6%±4.2%, 37.8%±4.5%, and 29.3%±5.6%) in the 10 surgical patients at 1 week and 1 month postoperation and the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with the preoperative value (93.2%±3.6%), showing significant differences in pairwise comparisons ( P<0.05). The cobb angles [10.0 (9.0, 11.0)°, 9.0 (9.0, 11.0)°, and 10.0 (9.0, 12.0)°] in the 10 surgical patients at 1 week and 1 month postoperation and the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with the preoperative value [12.5 (11.0, 14.0)°] ( P<0.05) , but there was no statistically significant difference between the time points after operation ( P>0.05). The Frankel grading was significantly improved in the 6 patients with nerve injury after operation. Of the 3 patients undergoing conservative treatment, the symptoms were cured in one, showed no change during follow-up in one, and aggravated in one. Conclusion:Surgical treatment can significantly relieve pain, improve spinal dysfunction and repair nerve injury in patients with bone cement dislodgement after vertebral augmentation.