Lavage prior to vertebral augmentation reduces the risk for cement leakage.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at assessing the cement leakage rate and the filling pattern in patients treated with vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty and stentoplasty with and without a newly developed lavage technique. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical case-control study. METHODS: A newly developed bipedicular lavage technique prior to cement application was applied in 64 patients (45.1 %) with 116 vertebrae, ("lavage" group). A conventional bipedicular cement injection technique was used in 78 patients (54.9 %) with 99 levels ("controls"). The outcome measures were filling patterns and leakage rates. RESULTS: The overall leakage rate (venous, cortical defect, intradiscal) was 37.9 % in the lavage and 83.8 % in the control group (p < 0.001). Venous leakage (lavage 12.9 % vs. controls 31.3 %; p = 0.001) and cortical defect leakage (lavage 17.2 % vs. controls 63.3 %; p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the lavage group compared to "controls," whereas intradiscal leakages were similar in both groups (lavage 12.1 % vs. controls 15.2 %; p = 0.51). For venous leakage multivariate logistic regression analysis showed lavage to be the only independent predictor. Lavage was associated with 0.33-times (95 % CI 0.16-0.65; p = 0.001) lower likelihood for leakage in compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Vertebral body lavage prior to cement augmentation is a safe technique to reduce cement leakage in a clinical setting and has the potential to prevent pulmonary fat embolism. Moreover, a better filling pattern can be achieved.

Periacetabular osteotomy through the pararectus approach: technical feasibility and control of fragment mobility by a validated surgical navigation system in a cadaver experiment.

PURPOSE: The pararectus approach has been validated for managing acetabular fractures. We hypothesised it might be an alternative approach for performing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). METHODS: Using four cadaver specimens, we randomly performed PAO through either the pararectus or a modified Smith-Petersen (SP) approach. We assessed technical feasibility and safety. Furthermore, we controlled fragment mobility using a surgical navigation system and compared mobility between approaches. The navigation system's accuracy was tested by cross-examination with validated preoperative planning software. RESULTS: The pararectus approach is technically feasible, allowing for adequate exposure, safe osteotomies and excellent control of structures at risk. Fragment mobility is equal to that achieved through the SP approach. Validation of these measurements yielded a mean difference of less <1 mm without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Experimental data suggests the pararectus approach might be an alternative approach for performing PAO. Clinical validation is necessary to confirm these promising preliminary results.

Short Posterior Stabilization in Combination With Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Thoracolumbar Fractures and the Effects of Implant Removal.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: Short posterior stabilization with vertebroplasty is one treatment option for thoracolumbar burst fractures (AO A3). Whether it avoids progression in segmental kyphosis, especially after implant removal, is unclear. In a retrospective case-control study, its stability and the effect on intervertebral discs with and without implant removal was studied. METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients were treated with bisegmental short posterior instrumentation and additional vertebroplasty of the fractured vertebra. Twenty-nine patients (male/female 17/12; age: 41.7 ± 15.4 years) underwent implant removal. Changes of segmental kyphosis and disc heights between both groups (with and without implant removal) were compared on lateral X-rays preoperative, postoperative, after 1 year and after implant removal. Risk factors for loss of reduction were analyzed. RESULTS: Kyphosis increased up to 12 months after implant removal. The loss of bisegmental correction was 6.0 ± 4.2 (range 0° to 16°) 12 months after implant removal. Risk factors for loss of reduction are younger patient age, fractures of the thoracolumbar junction (Th12), and degree of traumatic kyphosis. Intervertebral discs traversed by the stabilization lose height and don't recover within 1 year after implant removal. Without implant removal, disc height of the lower adjacent level is reduced after 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Short posterior stabilization in combination with vertebroplasty is a treatment alternative for thoracic and lumbar AO A3 fractures. After implant removal kyphosis increases, predominantly in the segment above the augmented vertebra. Risk factors for loss of reduction include younger age, fractures of the thoracolumbar junction (T12), and higher fracture kyphosis.

Evaluation of Constant Thickness Cartilage Models vs. Patient Specific Cartilage Models for an Optimized Computer-Assisted Planning of Periacetabular Osteotomy.

Modern computerized planning tools for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) use either morphology-based or biomechanics-based methods. The latter relies on estimation of peak contact pressures and contact areas using either patient specific or constant thickness cartilage models. We performed a finite element analysis investigating the optimal reorientation of the acetabulum in PAO surgery based on simulated joint contact pressures and contact areas using patient specific cartilage model. Furthermore we investigated the influences of using patient specific cartilage model or constant thickness cartilage model on the biomechanical simulation results. Ten specimens with hip dysplasia were used in this study. Image data were available from CT arthrography studies. Bone models were reconstructed. Mesh models for the patient specific cartilage were defined and subsequently loaded under previously reported boundary and loading conditions. Peak contact pressures and contact areas were estimated in the original position. Afterwards we used a validated preoperative planning software to change the acetabular inclination by an increment of 5° and measured the lateral center edge angle (LCE) at each reorientation position. The position with the largest contact area and the lowest peak contact pressure was defined as the optimal position. In order to investigate the influence of using patient specific cartilage model or constant thickness cartilage model on the biomechanical simulation results, the same procedure was repeated with the same bone models but with a cartilage mesh of constant thickness. Comparison of the peak contact pressures and the contact areas between these two different cartilage models showed that good correlation between these two cartilage models for peak contact pressures (r = 0.634 ∈ [0.6, 0.8], p < 0.001) and contact areas (r = 0.872 > 0.8, p < 0.001). For both cartilage models, the largest contact areas and the lowest peak pressures were found at the same position. Our study is the first study comparing peak contact pressures and contact areas between patient specific and constant thickness cartilage models during PAO planning. Good correlation for these two models was detected. Computer assisted planning with FE modeling using constant thickness cartilage models might be a promising PAO planning tool when a conventional CT is available.