• World Neurosurg · Oct 2017

    Spinal Instability Predictive Scoring System for Subsequent Fractures after Bone cement augmentation in Patients with Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures.

    • Hyeun Sung Kim and Chang Il Ju.
    • Department of Neurosurgery, Chosun University Hospital, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
    • World Neurosurg. 2017 Oct 1; 106: 736-745.

    ObjectiveBone cement augmentation procedures (vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty) are the primary treatments for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF). However, these procedures are associated with various problems resulting in subsequent fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the spinal instability factors related to subsequent fracture after vertebral augmentation procedures.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent augmentation procedures for osteoporotic VCF. Between May 2011 and November 2014, 285 patients (vertebroplasty, n = 231; kyphoplasty, n = 54) were enrolled. Subsequent fractures were classified into 4 types based on the fracture patterns: 1) no subsequent fracture, 2) neofracture, 3) hammer fracture (new vertebral fractures involving another vertebra without a definitive history of trauma), and 4) kyphotic compression fracture. We analyzed subsequent fracture patterns and their occurrence rates according to factors that may induce subsequent fracture and developed a predictive scoring system with respect to the hammer fracture occurrence rate. We classified all cases into 4 groups (A,B,C,D) according to Spinal Instability Predictive Scoring System score. Groups A, B, C, and D were defined by total scores of 0∼5, 6∼10, 11∼15, and 16∼20, respectively.ResultsThe subsequent fracture types for vertebroplasty were as follows: no subsequent fracture (n = 112; 48.28%); hammer fracture (n = 65; 28.02%); neofracture (n = 35; 15.09%); and kyphotic compression fracture (n = 19; 8.19%). According to the total scores, the occurrence rate of subsequent hammer fracture (no subsequent fracture, hammer fracture, neofracture, and kyphotic compression fracture) were as follows: group A (84.21%, 0%, 10.52%, and 5.26%), group B (64.58%, 10.45%, 12.5%, and 12.5%), group C (39.39%, 33.3%, 15.15%, and 12.12%), and group D (11.67%, 63.3%, 21.67%, and 3.33%).ConclusionsPredictive scores can be calculated and used to predict the possibility of subsequent fracture according to scores. Group D showed the highest predictive scores and will need more preventative treatment.Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

      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.