4.3 Article

A comparison of high viscosity bone cement and low viscosity bone cement vertebroplasty for severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
Volume 129, Issue -, Pages 10-16

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.11.018

Keywords

Severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures; Vertebroplasty; Bone cement; Viscosity; Leakage

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scholars of China [81401830]
  2. Medicine Technology Development Research Center, Ministry of Health of China [W2012ZT14]
  3. Natural Science Foundation for Young Scholars of Jiangsu Province, China [BK 20140496]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the clinical outcome and complications of high viscosity and low viscosity polymethyl methacrylate bone cement PVP for severe OVCFs. Methods: From December 2010 to December 2012,32 patients with severe OVCFs were randomly assigned to either group H using high viscosity cement (n = 14) or group L using low viscosity cement (n = 18). The clinical outcomes were assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 General Health Survey (SF-36), kyphosis Cobb's angle, vertebral height, and complications. Results: Significant improvement in the VAS, ODI, SF-36 scores, kyphosis Cobb's angle, and vertebral height were noted in both the groups, and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Cement leakage was seen less in group H. Postoperative assessment using computed tomography identified cement leakage in 5 of 17 (29.4%) vertebrae in group H and in 15 of 22 (68.2%) vertebrae in group L (P = 0.025). Conclusions: The PVP using high viscosity bone cement can provide the same clinical outcome and fewer complications compared with PVP using low viscosity bone cement. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available