Cargando…

A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation

A convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following vertebral augmentation is lacking, and therefore so is our understanding of the optimal distribution. To address these questions, we conducted a retrospective study using data from patients with a single-segment vertebral fracture wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Jin, Tang, Jing, Liu, Hao, Gu, Zuchao, Zhang, Yu, Yu, Shenghui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7530709/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33005025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73513-2
_version_ 1783589622387834880
author Liu, Jin
Tang, Jing
Liu, Hao
Gu, Zuchao
Zhang, Yu
Yu, Shenghui
author_facet Liu, Jin
Tang, Jing
Liu, Hao
Gu, Zuchao
Zhang, Yu
Yu, Shenghui
author_sort Liu, Jin
collection PubMed
description A convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following vertebral augmentation is lacking, and therefore so is our understanding of the optimal distribution. To address these questions, we conducted a retrospective study using data from patients with a single-segment vertebral fracture who were treated with vertebral augmentation at our two hospitals. Five evaluation methods based on X-ray film were compared to determine the best evaluation method and the optimal cement distribution. Of the 263 patients included, 49 (18.63%) experienced re-collapse of treated vertebrae and 119 (45.25%) experienced new fractures during follow-up. A 12-score evaluation method (kappa value = 0.652) showed the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting new fractures (0.591) or re-collapse (0.933). In linear regression with the 12-score method, the bone cement distribution showed a negative correlation with the re-collapse of treated vertebra, but it showed a weak correlation with new fracture. The two prediction curves intersected at a score of 10. We conclude that an X-ray-based method for evaluation of bone cement distribution can be convenient and practical, and it can reliably predict risk of new fracture and re-collapse. The 12-score method showed the strongest predictive power, with a score of 10 suggesting optimal bone cement distribution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7530709
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75307092020-10-02 A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation Liu, Jin Tang, Jing Liu, Hao Gu, Zuchao Zhang, Yu Yu, Shenghui Sci Rep Article A convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following vertebral augmentation is lacking, and therefore so is our understanding of the optimal distribution. To address these questions, we conducted a retrospective study using data from patients with a single-segment vertebral fracture who were treated with vertebral augmentation at our two hospitals. Five evaluation methods based on X-ray film were compared to determine the best evaluation method and the optimal cement distribution. Of the 263 patients included, 49 (18.63%) experienced re-collapse of treated vertebrae and 119 (45.25%) experienced new fractures during follow-up. A 12-score evaluation method (kappa value = 0.652) showed the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting new fractures (0.591) or re-collapse (0.933). In linear regression with the 12-score method, the bone cement distribution showed a negative correlation with the re-collapse of treated vertebra, but it showed a weak correlation with new fracture. The two prediction curves intersected at a score of 10. We conclude that an X-ray-based method for evaluation of bone cement distribution can be convenient and practical, and it can reliably predict risk of new fracture and re-collapse. The 12-score method showed the strongest predictive power, with a score of 10 suggesting optimal bone cement distribution. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7530709/ /pubmed/33005025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73513-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Liu, Jin
Tang, Jing
Liu, Hao
Gu, Zuchao
Zhang, Yu
Yu, Shenghui
A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
title A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
title_full A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
title_fullStr A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
title_full_unstemmed A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
title_short A novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
title_sort novel and convenient method to evaluate bone cement distribution following percutaneous vertebral augmentation
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7530709/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33005025
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73513-2
work_keys_str_mv AT liujin anovelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT tangjing anovelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT liuhao anovelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT guzuchao anovelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT zhangyu anovelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT yushenghui anovelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT liujin novelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT tangjing novelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT liuhao novelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT guzuchao novelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT zhangyu novelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation
AT yushenghui novelandconvenientmethodtoevaluatebonecementdistributionfollowingpercutaneousvertebralaugmentation