4.7 Article

Long-term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1410-1414

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.12.1410

关键词

vertebroplasty; osteoporosis; polymethylmethacrylate; vertebral crush fracture; interventional radiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To assess the immediate and long-term efficacy and safety of percutaneous vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) for the treatment of refractory pain resulting from osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Methods. A retrospective, open study of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) was conducted with long-term follow-up. PV with PMMA was carried out between 1990 and 1996 in 40 patients with symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s) that had not responded to maximum medical therapy. In 1997, each patient was asked to come back to our institution for a physical and spinal X-ray examination. Efficacy was assessed by changes over time in pain on Huskisson's visual analogue scale (VAS). Results. Thirty-four vertebrae treated by PV in 25 patients were evaluated with long-term follow-up. The mean duration of follow-up was 48 months (range 12-84 months). Pain assessed by the VAS significantly (P < 0.05) decreased from a mean of 80 mm +/- 16 (S.D.) before PV to 37 +/- 24 mm after 1 month and 34 +/- 28 mm at the time of maximal follow-up. There was no severe complication related to this treatment, and no progression of vertebral deformity in any of the injected vertebrae. However, there was a slight but significantly increased risk of vertebral fracture in the vicinity of a cemented vertebra (odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.1-4.56). The odds ratio of a vertebral fracture in the vicinity of an uncemented fractured vertebra was 1.44 (0.82-2.55). Conclusion. PV appears to be a safe and useful procedure for the treatment of focal back pain secondary to osteoporotic vertebral fracture when conservative treatment has failed.

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

4.7
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