4.3 Article

Preventive Vertebroplasty for Long-Term Consolidation of Vertebral Metastases

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 12, 页码 1726-1737

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-019-02314-6

关键词

Vertebroplasty; Preventive; Metastasis; Consolidation; Stabilization; Fracture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction To evaluate the long-term consolidation of vertebral metastases (VM) after preventive vertebroplasty (PV) and to report risk factors of pathological fracture despite PV. Materials and Methods Files of 100 consecutives cancer patients referred for PV of VM were retrospectively analyzed. We enumerated 215 VM at the time of the PV procedure (T0): 138 VM were considered at risk of pathological fracture and had PV (treated-VM), and 77 VM were not cemented. We compared the VM characteristics using the spine instability neoplastic score (SINS) at T0 and the rate of pathologic fracture between treated-VM and untreated-VM using Kaplan-Meier method. We analyzed risk factors of pathological fracture despite PV using treated-VM characteristics and quality of cement injection criteria. Results Despite a lower SINS value at T0 (p < 0.001), the rate of pathological fracture was significantly higher among untreated-VM compared to the treated-VM, (log-rank, p < 0.001). Major risk factors of fracture among treated-VM were: SINS value >= 8 (p < 0.012), mechanical pain (p = 0.001), osteolytic lesion (p = 0.033), metastatic vertebral body involvement > 50% with no collapse (p < 0.001) and unilateral posterior involvement by the vertebral metastasis (p = 0.024), Saliou score < 9 (p = 0.008), vertebral metastasis filling with cement < 50% (p = 0.007) and the absence of cement's contact with vertebral endplates (p = 0.014). Conclusion PV is long-term effective for consolidation of VM and must be discussed at the early diagnosed. Quality of cement injection matters, suggesting that techniques that improve the quantity and the quality of cement diffusion into the VM must be developed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据