medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2015, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2015; 67 (2)

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Versus Conservative Treatment and Rehabilitation in Women with Vertebral Fractures due to Osteoporosis: A Prospective Comparative Study

Macías-Hernández SI, Chávez-Arias DD, Miranda-Duarte A, Coronado-Zarco R, Diez-García MP

Language: English
References: 19
Page: 98-103
PDF size: 174.20 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Percutaneous vertebroplasty is commonly used in the management of osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures, although there is controversy on its superiority over conservative treatment. Here we compare pain and function in women with vertebral osteoporotic fractures who underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment with a protocolized rehabilitation program. Methods: A longitudinal and comparative prospective study was conducted. Women ≥ 60 years of age with a diagnosis of osteoporosis who had at least one vertebral thoracic or lumbar compression fracture were included and divided into two groups, conservative treatment or vertebroplasty. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess pain and function, respectively, as the outcome measures. Results: We included 31 patients, 13 (42%) treated with percutaneous vertebroplasty and 18 (58%) with conservative treatment. Baseline clinical characteristics, bone densitometry and fracture data were similar in both groups. At baseline, VAS was 73.1 ± 28.36 in the vertebroplasty group and 68.6 ± 36.1 mm in the conservative treatment group (p = 0.632); at three months it was 33.11 ± 10.1 vs. 42 ± 22.21 mm (p = 0.111); and at 12 months, 32.3 ± 11.21 vs. 36.1 ± 12.36 mm (p = 0.821). The ODI at baseline was 83% in the vertebroplasty group vs. 85% for conservative management (p = 0.34); at three months, 36 vs. 39% (p = 0.36); and at 12 months, 29.38 vs. 28.33% (p = 0.66). Conclusions: Treatment with percutaneous vertebroplasty had no advantages over conservative treatment for pain and function in this group of women ≥ 60 years of age with osteoporosis.


REFERENCES

  1. Cons-Molina F. [Osteoporosis and vertebral fractures: Evaluation and clinical importance]. Rev Metab Oseo Min. 2004;2:147-54.

  2. Cauley JA. Public health impact of osteoporosis. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68:1243-51.

  3. Barr JD, Barr MS, Lemley TJ, McCann RM. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for pain relief and spinal stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:923-8.

  4. Clark P, Tamayo JA, Cisneros F, Rivera FC, Valdés M. Epidemiology of osteoporosis in Mexico. Present and future directions. Rev Invest Clin. 2013;65:183-91.

  5. Clark P, Cons MF, Delezé M, et al. The prevalence of radiographic vertebral fractures in Latin American countries: the Latin American Vertebral Osteoporosis Study (LAVOS). Osteoporos Int. 2009;20:275-82.

  6. Heran M, Legiehn G, Munk P. Current concepts and techniques in percutaneous vertebroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am. 2006;37:409-34.

  7. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:557-68.

  8. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:569-79.

  9. Asenjo JF, Rossel F. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: new evidence adds heat to the debate. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012; 25:577-83.

  10. Robinson, Olerud C. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty- A systematic review of cement augmentation techniques for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures compared to standard medical therapy. Maturitas. 2012;72:42-9.

  11. Álvarez, L, Alcaraz M, Pérez-Higueras A, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: Functional improvement in patients with osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31: 1113-18.

  12. Grados F, Depriester C, Cayrolle G, Hardy N, Deramond H, Fardellone P. Long-term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39:1410-14.

  13. Trout AT, Kallmes DF, Kaufmann TJ. New fractures after vertebroplasty: adjacent fractures occur significantly sooner. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:217-23.

  14. Nagaraja S, Awada HK, Dreher ML, Gupta S, Miller SW. Vertebroplasty increases compression of adjacent IVDs and vertebrae in osteoporotic spines. Spine J. 2013;13:1872-80.

  15. Staples MP, Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, et al. Effectiveness of vertebroplasty using individual patient data from two randomized placebo controlled trials: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011;343: d3952.

  16. Papanastassiou ID, Phillips FM, Van Meirhaeghe J, et al. Comparing effects of kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, and non-surgical management in a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1826-43.

  17. Shi MM, Cai XZ, Lin T, Wang W, Yan SG. Is there really no benefit of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2785-99.

  18. Jevsevar DS, Esses SI, Cummins DS. Letter to the editor: Is there really no benefit of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471: 686-7.

  19. Shi MM, Yan SG. Reply to letter to the editor: Is there really no benefit of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:688-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com