Cargando…

Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) typically involves conventional lower-viscosity cement injection via bipedicular approach. Limited evidence is available comparing the clinical outcomes and complications in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) with PVP using hig...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Liang, Liu, Zhongjun, Wang, Jingcheng, Feng, Xinmin, Yang, Jiandong, Tao, Yuping, Zhang, Shengfei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26071690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0590-6
_version_ 1782376089578897408
author Zhang, Liang
Liu, Zhongjun
Wang, Jingcheng
Feng, Xinmin
Yang, Jiandong
Tao, Yuping
Zhang, Shengfei
author_facet Zhang, Liang
Liu, Zhongjun
Wang, Jingcheng
Feng, Xinmin
Yang, Jiandong
Tao, Yuping
Zhang, Shengfei
author_sort Zhang, Liang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) typically involves conventional lower-viscosity cement injection via bipedicular approach. Limited evidence is available comparing the clinical outcomes and complications in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) with PVP using high-viscosity cement through unipedicular or bipedicular approach. METHODS AND DESIGN: Fifty patients with OVCFs were randomly allocated into two groups adopting unipedicular or bipedicular PVP. The efficacy of unipedicular and bipedicular PVP was assessed by comparing operation time, X-ray exposure time, incidence of complications, vertebral height restoration, and improvement of the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) General Health Survey scores. RESULTS: The mean operative and exposure time to X-rays in the unipedicular PVP group was less than that of the bipedicular group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the VAS score, ODI score, SF-36 score, cement leakage rate or vertebral height restoration between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Unipedicular and bipedicular PVP are safe and effective treatments for OVCF. Compared with bipedicular PVP, unipedicular PVP entails a shorter surgical time and lower X-ray irradiation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4465457
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44654572015-06-15 Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study Zhang, Liang Liu, Zhongjun Wang, Jingcheng Feng, Xinmin Yang, Jiandong Tao, Yuping Zhang, Shengfei BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) typically involves conventional lower-viscosity cement injection via bipedicular approach. Limited evidence is available comparing the clinical outcomes and complications in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) with PVP using high-viscosity cement through unipedicular or bipedicular approach. METHODS AND DESIGN: Fifty patients with OVCFs were randomly allocated into two groups adopting unipedicular or bipedicular PVP. The efficacy of unipedicular and bipedicular PVP was assessed by comparing operation time, X-ray exposure time, incidence of complications, vertebral height restoration, and improvement of the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) General Health Survey scores. RESULTS: The mean operative and exposure time to X-rays in the unipedicular PVP group was less than that of the bipedicular group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the VAS score, ODI score, SF-36 score, cement leakage rate or vertebral height restoration between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Unipedicular and bipedicular PVP are safe and effective treatments for OVCF. Compared with bipedicular PVP, unipedicular PVP entails a shorter surgical time and lower X-ray irradiation. BioMed Central 2015-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4465457/ /pubmed/26071690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0590-6 Text en © Zhang et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhang, Liang
Liu, Zhongjun
Wang, Jingcheng
Feng, Xinmin
Yang, Jiandong
Tao, Yuping
Zhang, Shengfei
Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
title Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
title_full Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
title_fullStr Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
title_full_unstemmed Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
title_short Unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
title_sort unipedicular versus bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26071690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0590-6
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangliang unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT liuzhongjun unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT wangjingcheng unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT fengxinmin unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT yangjiandong unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT taoyuping unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy
AT zhangshengfei unipedicularversusbipedicularpercutaneousvertebroplastyforosteoporoticvertebralcompressionfracturesaprospectiverandomizedstudy