Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2019

01-08-2019 | Interventional

Evaluation of pain reduction and height restoration post vertebral augmentation using a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymer implant for the treatment of split (Magerl A2) vertebral fractures: a prospective, long-term, non-randomized study

Authors: Georgios Velonakis, Dimitrios Filippiadis, Stavros Spiliopoulos, Elias Brountzos, Nikolaos Kelekis, Alexis Kelekis

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The purposes of the study were to evaluate the safety and long-term efficacy of augmented vertebroplasty using a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) implant, for the treatment of lumbar or thoracic vertebral fractures (A2 according to the Magerl’s AO classification) and to analyze pain reduction, height restoration, and complications during a 2-year follow-up period.

Methods

Prospective non-randomized evaluation was performed for 21 painful split vertebral fractures (20 patients, 14 females, 6 males; mean age 72.80 ± 10.991) treated with percutaneous vertebral augmentation using a PEEK device, under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain before the procedure and after 6, 12, and 24 months was evaluated using a numeric visual scale (NVS) questionnaire. Imaging was performed by CT and X-rays. The minimum craniocaudal diameter at the level of the fracture and the maximum craniocaudal diameter at the middle of the fractured vertebra were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate pain decrease and height restoration.

Results

Successful implant positioning was achieved in all cases. No major clinical complications were observed. Comparing the mean pain scores at baseline (8.69 ± 1.138) and the first day after the treatment (1.19 ± 1.424), there was a decrease of 7.50 NVS units (p < 0.001). Minimum and maximum vertebral body heights were increased after the procedure 56.58% and 13.7% respectively (p < 0.001). Both pain relief and height restoration remained statistically significant (p < 0.001) during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

A2 Magerl thoracic or lumbar fractures could be successfully treated with PEEK implant-assisted vertebral augmentation. Randomized studies with larger sample sizes should be done to confirm the effectiveness of the technique.

Key Points

• Vertebral augmentation using a PEEK implant for the treatment of A2 Magerl lumbar or thoracic vertebral fractures seems to be effective both in terms of pain reduction and height restoration.
• Effects on pain reduction and height restoration have a long-term duration.
• The technique seems to be safe for the treatment of A2 Magerl fractures, without major complications in our study group.
Literature
1.
Barr JD, Jensen ME, Hirsch JA et al (2014) Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a consensus statement developed by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), American College of Radiology (ACR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spine Radiology (ASSR), Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA), and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS). J Vasc Interv Radiol 25(2):171–181CrossRef
2.
Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P et al (2016) Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 388(10052):1408–1416CrossRef
3.
Santiago FR, Kelekis A, Alvarez LG, Filippiadis DK (2014) Interventional procedures of the spine. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 18(3):309–317CrossRef
4.
Tsoumakidou G, Too CW, Koch G et al (2017) CIRSE guidelines on percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40(3):331–342CrossRef
5.
Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S (1994) A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 3(4):184–201CrossRef
6.
Aebi M (2010) Classification of thoracolumbar fractures and dislocations. Eur Spine J 19(1):2–7CrossRef
7.
De Boeck H, Opdecam P (1999) Split coronal fractures of the lumbar spine. Treatment by posterior internal fixation and transpedicular bone grafting. Int Orthop 23(2):87–90CrossRef
8.
Kim BG, Dan JM, Shin DE (2015) Treatment of thoracolumbar fracture. Asian Spine J 9(1):133–146
9.
Jutte PC, Castelein RM (2002) Complications of pedicle screws in lumbar and lumbosacral fusions in 105 consecutive primary operations. Eur Spine J 11(6):594–598CrossRef
10.
Huwart L, Foti P, Andreani O et al (2014) Vertebral split fractures: technical feasibility of percutaneous vertebroplasty. Eur J Radiol 83(1):173–178CrossRef
11.
Amoretti N, Huwart L (2014) Combination of percutaneous osteosynthesis and vertebroplasty of thoracolumbar split fractures under CT and fluoroscopy guidance: a new technique. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37(5):1363–1368CrossRef
12.
Fürderer S, Schnurr C, König D (2010) Minimal invasive transvertebral reduction and stabilisation of coronal split fractures. The Internet Journal of Minimally Invasive Spinal Technology 4:1 Available via http://​ispub.​com/​IJMIST/​4/​1/​9250. Accessed 5 Oct 2018
13.
Korovessis P, Vardakastanis K, Repantis T, Vitsas V (2013) Balloon kyphoplasty versus KIVA vertebral augmentation—comparison of 2 techniques for osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(4):292–299
14.
Tutton SM, Pflugmacher R, Davidian M, Beall DP, Facchini FR, Garfin SR (2015) KAST study: the Kiva system as a vertebral augmentation treatment—a safety and effectiveness trial: a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing the Kiva system with balloon kyphoplasty in treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(12):865–875
15.
Mailli L, Filippiadis DK, Brountzos EN, Alexopoulou E, Kelekis N, Kelekis A (2013) Clinical outcome and safety of multilevel vertebroplasty: clinical experience and results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 36(1):183–191CrossRef
16.
Bonnard E, Foti P, Kastler A, Amoretti N (2017) Percutaneous vertebroplasty under local anaesthesia: feasibility regarding patients’ experience. Eur Radiol 27(4):1512–1516CrossRef
17.
Kelekis AD, Somon T, Yilmaz H et al (2005) Interventional spine procedures. Eur J Radiol 55(3):362–383
18.
Filippiadis DK, Binkert C, Pellerin O, Hoffmann RT, Krajina A, Pereira PL (2017) Cirse quality assurance document and standards for classification of complications: the Cirse classification system. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 40(8):1141–1146CrossRef
19.
Otten LA, Bornemnn R, Jansen TR et al (2013) Comparison of balloon kyphoplasty with the new Kiva® VCF system for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures. Pain Physician 16(5):505–512
20.
Olivarez LM, Dipp JM, Escamilla RF et al (2011) Vertebral augmentation treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures with the Kiva VCF Treatment System. SAS J 5(1):114–119CrossRef
21.
Anselmetti GC, Manca A, Tutton S et al (2013) Percutaneous vertebral augmentation assisted by PEEK implant in painful osteolytic vertebral metastasis involving the vertebral wall: experience on 40 patients. Pain Physician 16(4):397–404
22.
Heo DH, Chin DK, Yoon YS, Kuh SU (2009) Recollapse of previous vertebral compression fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Osteoporos Int 20(3):473–480CrossRef
23.
Kim YY, Rhyu KW (2010) Recompression of vertebral body after balloon kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Eur Spine J 19(11):1907–1912CrossRef
24.
Beall DP, Olan WJ, Kakad P, Li Q, Hornberger J (2015) Economic analysis of Kiva VCF treatment system compared to balloon kyphoplasty using randomized Kiva Safety and Effectiveness Trial (KAST) data. Pain Physician 18(3):299–306
25.
Anselmetti GC, Manca A, Marcia S et al (2014) Vertebral augmentation with nitinol endoprosthesis: clinical experience in 40 patients with 1-year follow-up. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37(1):193–202CrossRef
26.
Vanni D, Pantalone A, Bigossi F, Pineto F, Lucantoni D, Salini V (2012) New perspective for third generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation procedures: preliminary results at 12 months. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 3(2):47–51CrossRef
27.
28.
Vanni D, Galzio R, Kazakova A et al (2016) Third-generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation systems. J Spine Surg 2(1):13–20CrossRef
29.
Komemushi A, Tanigawa N, Kariya S et al (2006) Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic compression fracture: multivariate study of predictors of new vertebral body fracture. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29(4):580–585CrossRef
30.
Khosla A, Diehn FE, Rad AE, Kallmes DF (2012) Neither subendplate cement deposition nor cement leakage into the disk space during vertebroplasty significantly affects patient outcomes. Radiology 264(1):180–186CrossRef
31.
Amoretti N (2018) Early percutaneous vertebroplasty helps motorsport professionals to resume competition soon after vertebral fracture. Eur Radiol 28(7):2870–2871CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of pain reduction and height restoration post vertebral augmentation using a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymer implant for the treatment of split (Magerl A2) vertebral fractures: a prospective, long-term, non-randomized study
Authors
Georgios Velonakis
Dimitrios Filippiadis
Stavros Spiliopoulos
Elias Brountzos
Nikolaos Kelekis
Alexis Kelekis
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5867-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

European Radiology 8/2019 Go to the issue

Cardiac

Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CT angiography derived from low-dose dynamic CT myocardial perfusion: a feasibility study with comparison to invasive coronary angiography

Cardiac

Comprehensive evaluation of macroscopic and microscopic myocardial fibrosis by cardiac MR: intra-individual comparison of gadobutrol versus gadoterate meglumine

Gastrointestinal

Prognostic value of MRI in assessing extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: multi-readers’ diagnostic performance

Musculoskeletal

Whole-body MRI to assess bone involvement in prostate cancer and multiple myeloma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of the T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), and high b-values diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences

Musculoskeletal

Automatic quantification of tenosynovitis on MRI of the wrist in patients with early arthritis: a feasibility study

Oncology

Pilot study of rapid MR pancreas screening for patients with BRCA mutation