Clinical outcomes with second injection after insufficient bone cement distribution in unilateral kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compressive fracture: a cohort retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Bone cement distribution is an important factor affecting pain relief and long-term prognosis of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) treated with vertebral augmentation. Unilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) is the most common procedure, and insufficient bone cement distribution is more common than bilateral PKP. However, effective remedies are remain lack. In this study, sufficient cement distribution was achieved by adjusting the working channel followed by second cement injection as a remedy in cases with insufficient cement distribution, and the purpose was to evaluate the clinical outcomes by a retrospective cohort study. METHODS: From July 1, 2017 to July 31, 2020, OVCF patients treated with unilateral PKP were included in this retrospective cohort study. According to the bone cement distribution (insufficient cement distribution was confirmed when the cement did not exceed the mid line of the vertebral body in frontal film or/and the cement did not contact the upper/lower vertebral endplates in the lateral film.) and whether second injection was performed during surgery, the patients were divided into three groups. Insufficient group: patients with insufficient cement distribution confirmed by fluoroscopy or postoperative x-ray. Second injection group: patients with insufficient cement distribution was found during the procedure, and second injection was performed to improve the cement distribution. Control group: patients with sufficient cement distribution in one injection. The Primary outcome was cemented vertebrae re-collapse rate. The secondary outcomes included operative time, radiation exposure, cement leakage rate, VAS, ODI, and adjacent vertebral fracture rate. RESULTS: There are 34 cases in insufficient group, 45 cases in second injection group, and 241 cases in control group. There was no significant difference in baseline data and follow-up time among the three groups. Primary outcome: The injured vertebrae re-collapse rate of insufficient group was significantly higher than that of second injection group (42.22% vs 20.59%, P = 0.000) and control group (42.22% vs. 18.26%, P = 0.000). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the survival time between second injection group and control group (P = 0.741, Log-rank test), both of which were significant less than that in insufficient group (P = 0.032 and 0.000, respectively). Secondary outcomes: There was no significant difference in VAS score and ODI after operation between second injection group and control group, both of which were superior to those in insufficient group (P = 0.000). At the final follow-up, there was no significant difference in VAS and ODI among the three groups (P > 0.05). The operation time of second injection group was significantly higher than that of insufficient group (53.41 ± 8.85 vs 44.18 ± 7.41, P = 0.000) and control group (53.41 ± 8.85 vs 44.28 ± 7.22, P = 0.000). The radiation exposure of the second injection group was significantly higher than that of insufficient group (40.09 ± 8.39 vs 30.38 ± 6.87, P = 0.000) and control group (40.09 ± 8.39 vs 31.31 ± 6.49, P = 0.000). The cement leakage rate of second injection group (20.59%) was comparable with that of insufficient group (24.44%) and control group (21.26%) (P = 0.877). The length of hospital stay of the second injection group (4.38 ± 1.72) was comparable with that of insufficient group (4.18 ± 1.60) and control group (4.52 ± 1.46) (P = 0.431). CONCLUSIONS: When cement distribution is insufficient during unilateral PKP, second injection may relieve early pain, reduce the incidence of cemented vertebral re-collapse and adjacent vertebral fracture, without increasing the cement leakage rate, although this procedure may increase the operation time and radiation exposure.