Cement augmentation for treatment of high to mid-thoracic osteoporotic compression fractures, high-viscosity cement percutaneous vertebroplasty versus balloon kyphoplasty.

Whilst the majority of the literature suggests that balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) can relieve pain associated with vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), evidence of high-viscosity cement (HVC) vertebroplasty (VP) or low viscosity cement (LVC) BKP for the treatment of VCFs at the levels of high and mid-thoracic vertebrae remains limited. The purpose of this study was to identify the different outcomes between HVC VP and LVC BKP used to repair high (T4-6) and mid (T7-9)-thoracic VCFs. A total of 114 patients with painful collapsed single-level vertebrae at high to mid-thoracic level who had undergone HVC VP or LVC BKP at a single tertiary medical center was reviewed retrospectively. All patients were divided into the HVC VP group (n = 72) and the LVC BKP group (n = 42). Clinical outcomes including demographic data and visual analogue scale (VAS) were compared. Radiographic data were collected preoperatively, postoperatively, and at final follow-up. More volume (ml) of cement injection was seen in the LVC BKP group (4.40 vs. 3.66, p < 0.001). The operation time (minutes) of the HVC VP group was significantly less than that of the LVC BKP group (33.34 vs. 39.05, p = 0.011). Leakage rate of cement was also fewer in the HVC VP group (26/72 vs. 27/42, p = 0.004). Compared with preoperative data, the VAS was improved after surgery in both groups. The LVC BKP group corrected more middle vertebral body height and local kyphosis angle than the HVC VP group. The outcomes of LVC BKP were not superior to that of HVC VP. HVC VP might be a good alternative to LVC BKP in the treatment of osteoporotic VCFs in high to mid-thoracic spine.

Proximal junctional fractures after long-segment instrumented fusion: comparisons between upper instrumented vertebrae and upper instrumented vertebrae + 1.

INTRODUCTION: Proximal junctional failure (PJF) is a well-known complication after long-segment (at least 4 vertebral levels) instrumented fusion. The etiologies of PJF include degenerative processes or are fracture induced. The fracture type of PJF includes vertebral fractures developed at the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) or UIV + 1. The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical and radiographic features of these two subtypes of PJF and to analyze risk factors in these patients. METHOD: In total, forty-two patients with PJF who underwent revision surgery were included. Twenty patients suffered fractures at the UIV, and the other 22 cases had fractures at UIV + 1. The weighted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and bone mineral density (BMD) T scores for these patients were recorded. Surgery-related data of index surgery and complications were collected. Radiographic parameters including pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), and PI-LL were recorded in both groups before and after the revision surgery. RESULT: Both groups had severe osteoporosis and comorbidities. The interval between the index surgery and revision surgery was shorter in the UIV group than in the UIV + 1 group (8.2 months vs. 35.9 months; p < 0.001). The analysis for radiographic parameters in UIV and UIV + 1 group demonstrated no significant change before and after the revision surgery. However, the preoperative radiographic analysis showed a larger PT (31.5° vs. 23.2°, p = 0.013), PI (53.7° vs. 45.3°, p = 0.035), and SVA (78.6° vs. 59.4°, p = 0.024) in the UIV group compared to the UIV + 1 group. The postoperative radiographic analysis showed a larger PI-LL (27.8° vs. 18.1°, p = 0.016) in the UIV group compared to the UIV + 1 group. CONCLUSION: PJF in the UIV group tends to occur earlier than in the UIV + 1 group. Moreover, more severe global sagittal imbalances were found in the UIV group than in UIV + 1 group.