• Pain physician · Nov 2017

    Observational Study

    Sacroplasty: A Ten-Year Analysis of Prospective Patients Treated with Percutaneous Sacroplasty: Literature Review and Technical Considerations.

    • Michael E Frey, Christopher Warner, Samuel M Thomas, Karan Johar, Heathpaul Singh, Maheen S Mohammad, and Douglas P Beall.
    • Advanced Pain Management and Spine Specialists, Ft. Myers, FL; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
    • Pain Physician. 2017 Nov 1; 20 (7): E1063-E1072.

    BackgroundThe treatment of sacral fractures has evolved since its first description in 1982. Several techniques for sacral augmentation have been developed since 2001, and the rate of improvement is rapid with over 50% reduction in pain achieved prior to post-procedure discharge of the patient. Pain reduction occurs primarily within the first 3 months and is sustained at 12 months; however, the long-term outcomes have not previously been studied.ObjectivesWe aim to evaluate the long-term efficacy of sacroplasty versus non-surgical management (NSM) in treating sacral insufficiency fractures (SIFs), including the effect on pain relief, opioid and other analgesic use, patient satisfaction, and complication rates. Additionally, we aim to review the most current sacroplasty literature.Study DesignA 10-year prospective, observational cohort study of patients with SIFs treated with sacral augmentation.SettingA single-center interventional pain management private practice.MethodsTwo-hundred and forty-four patients with SIFs were treated with sacroplasty (210 patients) or NSM (34 patients) beginning in January 2004 and then followed for 10 years. The patients' gender, age, pre-procedure pain duration, analgesic use, pain level, and satisfaction were recorded at baseline and at post-procedure follow-up intervals of 2, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks, and 2 years. The experimental group was then contacted at 10 years. Post-procedure complications before discharge and at each follow-up were also evaluated.ResultsBoth NSM and sacroplasty resulted in statistically significant drops in visual analog scale (VAS) scores from pre-treatment to 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). When measured from follow-up to follow-up, the NSM group's only significant decrease in the mean VAS score was between pre-treatment and 2 weeks (P = 0.002). The experimental group had significant decreases over the periods pre-op through post-op (P < 0.001), post-op through 2 weeks (P < 0.001), 12 weeks through 24 weeks (P = 0.014), and 24 weeks through one year (P = 0.002). The experimental cohort experienced statistically significant drops in the mean VAS scores between follow-ups for a longer period of time. Opioid and non-opioid analgesic use was markedly decreased preoperatively to postoperatively and was sustained at the 10-year follow-up.LimitationsPatients were placed into the control group, NSM, if they did not meet inclusion criteria for sacroplasty. However, the baseline characteristics of the sacroplasty versus NSM group were not statistically different. Additionally, the control group was only followed through 2 years and was not contacted at the 10-year follow-up.ConclusionsOur results and those reported in previous studies establish that sacroplasty allows for decreased use of medications and results in pain relief, greater patient mobility, and improved patient satisfaction. In addition to the published body of literature, our results show strong evidence in support of sacroplasty as a safe and efficacious treatment of SIFs.Key WordsSacroplasty, sacral fracture, fracture, osteoporosis, insufficiency, radiology.

      Pubmed     Free 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…