A Comparative Analysis of Single versus Double Intravertebral Reduction Device Implantation for Single-Level Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: Radiological and Clinical Outcomes.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain physician Pub Date : 2025-09-01
Yuan-Fu Liu, Hao-Jun Chuang, Yu-Chia Hsu, Fu-Yao Fan, Chao-Jui Chang, Cheng-Li Lin
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of Single versus Double Intravertebral Reduction Device Implantation for Single-Level Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: Radiological and Clinical Outcomes.","authors":"Yuan-Fu Liu, Hao-Jun Chuang, Yu-Chia Hsu, Fu-Yao Fan, Chao-Jui Chang, Cheng-Li Lin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intravertebral reduction devices have been used for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs), with the advantage of fracture reduction before cement injection and the potential to prevent the secondary loss of vertebral height. While double devices via bipedicle insertion are commonly recommended, there is currently no report on the safety and efficacy of using a single device to treat OVFs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of single intravertebral reduction device implantation to those of double intravertebral reduction device implantation in the treatment of single-level OVFs.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Observational cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study was conducted at a tertiary medical center. Data were collected by reviewing the electronic medical records of a consecutive series of individuals from January 2015 to December 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with single-level OVFs between T8 and L4 who underwent single (n = 27) or double (n = 56) intravertebral device implantation were included in the study and analyzed. Outcome measures included radiographic assessments and the evaluation of clinical outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the associations among the number of implants, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density, and presence of radiographic vacuum clefts on vertebral height correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the single- and double-device groups demonstrated significant improvements in fracture reduction and functional outcomes. The single-device group had a shorter operating time (36.0 ± 2.82 min vs. 62.92 ± 16.49 min, P = 0.012) and lower cement volume usage (3.60 ± 0.00 mL vs. 5.04 ± 1.56 mL, P = 0.032).However, the double-device group showed greater improvement in anterior vertebral height (7.02 ± 3.34 mm, 95% CI: 6.13-7.91 vs. 5.24 ± 3.94 mm, 95% CI: 3.68-6.80, p = 0.034) and regional kyphotic angle correction (6.79 ± 6.50°, 95% CI: 4.83-8.75 vs. 2.79 ± 6.79°, 95% CI: 0.10-5.48, P = 0.011). Despite these radiological differences, long-term functional outcomes at the last follow-up were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. Higher BMI and the presence of an intravertebral vacuum cleft appeared as potential risk factors for the re-collapse of vertebral body height.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This study is retrospective and has inherent limitations related to sample size and variability. Some measurements showed a high degree of variability, which could have led to overlapping confidence intervals and a potential risk of Type II errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single intravertebral reduction device implantation is an effective and safe treatment option for OVFs, yielding clinical outcomes comparable to those of double device implantation. Additionally, certain risk factors, such as higher BMI and the presence of an intravertebral vacuum cleft, should be evaluated carefully, since they may contribute to vertebral height re-collapse following expandable device augmentation. However, prospective randomized controlled trials are still warranted to further evaluate the efficacy of single versus double device implantation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"28 5","pages":"E535-E546"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intravertebral reduction devices have been used for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs), with the advantage of fracture reduction before cement injection and the potential to prevent the secondary loss of vertebral height. While double devices via bipedicle insertion are commonly recommended, there is currently no report on the safety and efficacy of using a single device to treat OVFs.

Objective: This study aims to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of single intravertebral reduction device implantation to those of double intravertebral reduction device implantation in the treatment of single-level OVFs.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: The study was conducted at a tertiary medical center. Data were collected by reviewing the electronic medical records of a consecutive series of individuals from January 2015 to December 2020.

Methods: Patients with single-level OVFs between T8 and L4 who underwent single (n = 27) or double (n = 56) intravertebral device implantation were included in the study and analyzed. Outcome measures included radiographic assessments and the evaluation of clinical outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the associations among the number of implants, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density, and presence of radiographic vacuum clefts on vertebral height correction.

Results: Both the single- and double-device groups demonstrated significant improvements in fracture reduction and functional outcomes. The single-device group had a shorter operating time (36.0 ± 2.82 min vs. 62.92 ± 16.49 min, P = 0.012) and lower cement volume usage (3.60 ± 0.00 mL vs. 5.04 ± 1.56 mL, P = 0.032).However, the double-device group showed greater improvement in anterior vertebral height (7.02 ± 3.34 mm, 95% CI: 6.13-7.91 vs. 5.24 ± 3.94 mm, 95% CI: 3.68-6.80, p = 0.034) and regional kyphotic angle correction (6.79 ± 6.50°, 95% CI: 4.83-8.75 vs. 2.79 ± 6.79°, 95% CI: 0.10-5.48, P = 0.011). Despite these radiological differences, long-term functional outcomes at the last follow-up were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the 2 groups. Higher BMI and the presence of an intravertebral vacuum cleft appeared as potential risk factors for the re-collapse of vertebral body height.

Limitations: This study is retrospective and has inherent limitations related to sample size and variability. Some measurements showed a high degree of variability, which could have led to overlapping confidence intervals and a potential risk of Type II errors.

Conclusion: Single intravertebral reduction device implantation is an effective and safe treatment option for OVFs, yielding clinical outcomes comparable to those of double device implantation. Additionally, certain risk factors, such as higher BMI and the presence of an intravertebral vacuum cleft, should be evaluated carefully, since they may contribute to vertebral height re-collapse following expandable device augmentation. However, prospective randomized controlled trials are still warranted to further evaluate the efficacy of single versus double device implantation.

单节段骨质疏松性椎体骨折单节段与双节段椎体复位器植入的对比分析:影像学和临床结果。
背景:椎体内复位装置已被用于治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折(OVFs),其优点是在骨水泥注射前骨折复位,并有可能防止继发性椎体高度损失。虽然通常推荐通过双椎弓根插入双装置,但目前还没有关于使用单个装置治疗ovf的安全性和有效性的报道。目的:本研究旨在比较单一椎体复位器与双重椎体复位器在治疗单节段ovf中的放射学和临床效果。研究设计:观察性队列研究。环境:本研究在三级医疗中心进行。通过审查2015年1月至2020年12月连续一系列个人的电子病历收集数据。方法:选取T8 ~ L4间单节段ovf患者(27例)或双节段ovf患者(56例)进行研究分析。结果测量包括影像学评估和临床结果评估。采用多元线性回归分析来检验植入物数量、身体质量指数(BMI)、骨密度和x线摄影真空裂缝的存在与椎体高度矫正之间的关系。结果:单装置组和双装置组在骨折复位和功能预后方面均有显著改善。单器械组手术时间较短(36.0±2.82 min vs. 62.92±16.49 min, P = 0.012),水泥用量较低(3.60±0.00 mL vs. 5.04±1.56 mL, P = 0.032)。然而,双装置组在椎体前高度(7.02±3.34 mm, 95% CI: 6.13-7.91 vs. 5.24±3.94 mm, 95% CI: 3.68-6.80, p = 0.034)和局部后凸角矫正(6.79±6.50°,95% CI: 4.83-8.75 vs. 2.79±6.79°,95% CI: 0.10-5.48, p = 0.011)方面有较大改善。尽管有这些放射学上的差异,但在最后一次随访时,两组之间的长期功能结果是可比较的。两组患者并发症发生率无显著差异。较高的BMI和椎内真空裂的存在是椎体高度再次塌陷的潜在危险因素。局限性:本研究是回顾性的,在样本量和可变性方面存在固有的局限性。一些测量显示出高度的可变性,这可能导致重叠的置信区间和II型错误的潜在风险。结论:单椎体复位器植入术是治疗ovf的一种安全有效的方法,其临床效果与双椎体复位器植入术相当。此外,某些危险因素,如较高的BMI和椎内真空裂的存在,应该仔细评估,因为它们可能导致可伸缩装置增强后椎体高度再次塌陷。然而,前瞻性随机对照试验仍有必要进一步评估单装置与双装置植入的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信