Die Wirbelsäule 2023; 07(04): 232-238
DOI: 10.1055/a-1926-0858
Übersicht

Prophylaktische Zementaugmentation zur Frakturprophylaxe und Vermeidung von Anschlusskyphosen – Sinn oder Unsinn?

Prophylactic Cement Augmentation for Fracture Prophylaxis and Avoidance of Subsequent Kyphosis – Sense or Nonsense?
1   Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN39064)
,
Cornelius Jacobs
2   Zentrum für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, St. Remigius Krankenhaus Opladen, Leverkusen, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations

Zusammenfassung

Osteoporotische Wirbelkörperfrakturen werden trotz ihrer Häufigkeit meist unterschätzt mit teils gravierenden Folgen für den Patienten. Im Sinne der Aufrechterhaltung der Lebensqualität, Mobilität und zur Vermeidung eines komplikationsträchtigen Verlaufes ist eine suffiziente Behandlung essenziell. Fester Bestandteil ist dabei heutzutage die Zementaugmentierung des betroffenen Wirbelkörpers. Allerdings zeigt sich unabhängig von der Behandlungsmodalität ein drei- bis fünffach erhöhtes Risiko für Anschlussfrakturen mit konsekutiver Kyphosierung im Segment. Ursächlich hierfür sind behandlungsbedingte Veränderungen der Biomechanik, welche mit einer Mehrbelastung der angrenzenden Grund- und Deckplatten einhergehen. Zur Reduktion der Frakturrate ist der Nutzen einer prophylaktischen Augmentierung der angrenzenden Wirbelkörper weiterhin Gegenstand der Diskussion.

Abstract

Despite their frequency, osteoporotic vertebral body fractures are usually underestimated, sometimes with serious consequences for the patient. Sufficient treatment is essential in order to maintain quality of life, mobility and to avoid a complication-prone course. An integral part is currently the cement augmentation of the affected vertebral body. However, regardless of the treatment modality, there is a three to fivefold increase in the risk of subsequent fractures with subsequent kyphosis in the segment. The causes for this are treatment-related changes in the biomechanics, which are associated with an additional load on the adjacent base and cover plates. To reduce the fracture rate, the benefit of prophylactic augmentation of the adjacent vertebral bodies is still a subject of discussion.



Publication History

Article published online:
24 October 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • Literatur

  • 1 Gold DT. The clinical impact of vertebral fractures: quality of life in women with osteoporosis. Bone 1996; 18: 185S-189S DOI: 10.1016/8756-3282(95)00500-5. (PMID: 8777086)
  • 2 Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A. et al. Mortality after osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2004; 15: 38-42 DOI: 10.1007/s00198-003-1490-4. (PMID: 14593451)
  • 3 Scheyerer MJ, Lenz M, Jacobs C. et al. Mediating Medical Comorbidities in Geriatric Patients Undergoing Surgery for OVCF: From Preoperative Screening to Risk and Outcomes Optimization. Global Spine J 2023; 13: 6S-12S
  • 4 Lindsay R, Silverman SL, Cooper C. et al. Risk of new vertebral fracture in the year following a fracture. JAMA 2001; 285: 320-323 DOI: 10.1001/jama.285.3.320. (PMID: 11176842)
  • 5 Jesse MK, Petersen B, Glueck D. Effect of the Location of Endplate Cement Extravasation on Adjacent Level Fracture in Osteoporotic Patients Undergoing Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty. Pain Physician 2015; 18: E805-814 (PMID: 26431134)
  • 6 Fribourg D, Tang C, Sra P. et al. Incidence of subsequent vertebral fracture after kyphoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 2270-2276
  • 7 Uppin AA, Hirsch JA, Centenera LV. et al. Occurrence of new vertebral body fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. Radiology 2003; 226: 119-124
  • 8 Oakland RJ, Furtado NR, Wilcox RK. et al. Preliminary biomechanical evaluation of prophylactic vertebral reinforcement adjacent to vertebroplasty under cyclic loading. Spine J 2009; 9: 174-181 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.009. (PMID: 18640876)
  • 9 Steens J, Verdonschot N, Aalsma AM. et al. The influence of endplate-to-endplate cement augmentation on vertebral strength and stiffness in vertebroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: E419-422 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318074d4b9. (PMID: 17621198)
  • 10 Chevalier Y, Pahr D, Charlebois M. et al. Cement distribution, volume, and compliance in vertebroplasty: some answers from an anatomy-based nonlinear finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33: 1722-1730
  • 11 Baroud G, Vant C, Wilcox R. Long-term effects of vertebroplasty: adjacent vertebral fractures. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2006; 16: 265-80 DOI: 10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.v16.i4.10. (PMID: 17073569)
  • 12 Kebaish KM, Martin CT, O'Brien JR. et al. Use of vertebroplasty to prevent proximal junctional fractures in adult deformity surgery: a biomechanical cadaveric study. Spine J 2013; 13: 1897-1903 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.039. (PMID: 24094714)
  • 13 Zhang H, Xu C, Zhang T. et al. Does Percutaneous Vertebroplasty or Balloon Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures Increase the Incidence of New Vertebral Fractures? A Meta-Analysis. Pain Physician 2017; 20: E13-E28 (PMID: 28072794)
  • 14 Meeder PJ, DaFonseca K, Hillmeier J. et al. Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in fractures in the elderly: effort and effect. Chirurg 2003; 74: 994-999 DOI: 10.1007/s00104-003-0748-x. (PMID: 14605716)
  • 15 Tourtier JP, Cottez S. Images in clinical medicine. Pulmonary cement embolism after vertebroplasty. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 258 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMicm1010341. (PMID: 22256808)
  • 16 Becker S, Garoscio M, Meissner J. et al. Is there an indication for prophylactic balloon kyphoplasty? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 458: 83-89
  • 17 Chen Z, Song C, Lin H. et al. Does prophylactic vertebral augmentation reduce the refracture rate in osteoporotic vertebral fracture patients: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2021; 30: 2691-2697
  • 18 Rohlmann A, Boustani HN, Bergmann G. et al. A probabilistic finite element analysis of the stresses in the augmented vertebral body after vertebroplasty. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1585-1595 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1386-x. (PMID: 20361339)
  • 19 Rohlmann A, Zander T, Jony et al. Effect of vertebral body stiffness before and after vertebroplasty on intradiscal pressure. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2005; 50: 148–152.
  • 20 Yang H, Zou J. Filling materials used in kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fracture: a literature review. Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol 2011; 39: 87-91 DOI: 10.3109/10731199.2010.503319. (PMID: 20626231)
  • 21 Lu Q, Liu C, Wang D. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite versus polymethylmethacrylate cement for percutaneous kyphoplasty. Spine J 2019; 19: 1871-1884 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.06.007. (PMID: 31202837)
  • 22 Chiu PY, Kao FC, Hsieh MK. et al. A Retrospective Analysis in 1347 Patients Undergoing Cement Augmentation for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture: Is the Sandwich Vertebra at a Higher Risk of Further Fracture?. Neurosurgery 2021; 88: 342-348
  • 23 Yang B, Zhao Y, Zhao Y. Is the incidence of sandwich vertebral fracture higher than that of ordinary adjacent vertebral fracture after PKP?. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101: e29900
  • 24 Chen WJ, Kao YH, Yang SC. et al. Impact of cement leakage into disks on the development of adjacent vertebral compression fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23: 35-39