• Spine · Jan 2005

    Comparative Study

    Biomechanical comparison of unipedicular versus bipedicular kyphoplasty.

    • John Steinmann, Craig T Tingey, Gina Cruz, and Qian Dai.
    • Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, USA. j.steinmann@verizon.net
    • Spine. 2005 Jan 15;30(2):201-5.

    Study DesignA cadaveric study comparing the biomechanics of unipedicular versus bipedicular kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to compare unipedicular kyphoplasty to bipedicular kyphoplasty in restoring strength, stiffness, and height to osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and to study the degree of unilateral wedging when using a unipedicular versus bipedicular approach to kyphoplasty.Summary Of Background DataOsteoporotic vertebral compression fractures are a common ailment of the elderly that can lead to chronic pain and deformity. Recently developed treatments known as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty provide pain relief by percutaneously augmenting the fractured vertebral body with polymethyl methacrylate via a transpedicular approach. Vertebroplasty via a unipedicular approach has been shown to provide comparable restoration of vertebral body stiffness when compared to a bipedicular approach. The anticipated benefits of a unipedicular approach include reduction in patient risk, operative time, radiation exposure, and cost. No studies have evaluated the efficacy of unipedicular kyphoplasty.Material And MethodsTwo fresh-frozen human cadaveric spines (T3-L5) were disarticulated, and the vertebral bodies (n = 30) were compressed using an Instron 8521 machine, recording load versus displacement. The fractured vertebral bodies then underwent kyphoplasty via either a unipedicular or bipedicular approach. The augmented vertebral bodies were then recompressed. The strength, stiffness, and height restoration of the groups were compared. Following recompression, the risk for lateral wedging was evaluated by comparing lateral height measurements.ResultsFollowing fracture and subsequent kyphoplasty augmentation, the mean strength of the bipedicular group was 1.40 kN (+/- 0.38) versus 1.57 kN (+/- 0.55) in the unipedicular group. Average stiffness in the bipedicular group was 0.4387 kN/mm (+/- 0.2095) compared to 0.6880 kN/mm (+/- 0.3179) in the unipedicular group. Postcompression vertebral body height was restored to 96% of prefracture height in the bipedicular group and 94% of prefracture height in the unipedicular group. The mean absolute value of the difference in height between right and left side of the vertebral bodies was 1.06 mm (+/- 1.01) in the bipedicular group, whereas the unipedicular group had a mean of 1.78 mm (+/- 1.84). Statistical analysis using 1-way analysis of variance revealed no significant difference in any of the outcome measurements between the unipedicular and bipedicular groups (P < 0.05).ConclusionsUnipedicular kyphoplasty is comparable to bipedicular kyphoplasty in the restoration of vertebral body strength, stiffness, and height in experimentally induced vertebral compression fractures. There was no greater risk for lateral wedging in the unipedicular group compared to the bipedicular group. Given the advantages of a unipedicular approach with respect to vertebral pedicle cannulation risk, operative time, radiation exposure, and cost, this study would support the use of a unipedicular approach to kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.