Complications of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral fractures: results of a questionnaire study.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (VP) and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) are minimally invasive procedures performed to stabilize vertebral fractures. With continuing expansion in clinical use, a broad spectrum of complications has been reported for both interventions. The goal of the current study was to compare the safety of these procedures using a questionnaire completed by practitioners. A questionnaire was developed with multiple choice and open questions. General data as well as information regarding complications which occurred during the year 2007 were requested. The incidence and odds ratios (OR) of complications for both procedures were analysed. One hundred and sixteen questionnaires detailing 3216 VP and 5139 BKP procedures were included for evaluation. The risk of cement extrusion from the vertebra (OR 2.64, p <0.01) and into the spinal canal (OR 435, p <0.01) was markedly increased for VP. The odds ratio for neurologic complications (OR 2.56, p = 0.1) and secondary fracture (OR = 0.99, p = 0.96) did not indicate significant predisposition for either procedure. Secondary fracture occurred in 5% of VP and 5.1% of BKP procedures. Overall, 80% of practitioners subjectively considered BKP the safer procedure. Overall, BKP appears safer than VP. Symptomatic complications are rare with both procedures. Additional prospective data is necessary to reach more definitive conclusions.

Comparison of standard fusion with a "topping off" system in lumbar spine surgery: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fusion of lumbar spine segments is a well-established therapy for many pathologies. The procedure changes the biomechanics of the spine. Initial clinical benefits may be outweighed by ensuing damage to the adjacent segments. Various surgical devices and techniques have been developed to prevent this deterioration. "Topping off" systems combine rigid fusion with a flexible pedicle screw system to prevent adjacent segment disease (ASD). To date, there is no convincing evidence that these devices provide any patient benefits. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a randomized, therapy-controlled trial in a clinical care setting at a university hospital. Patients presenting to the outpatient clinic with degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis will be assessed against study inclusion and exclusion criteria. After randomization, the control group will undergo conventional fusion. The intervention group will undergo fusion with a supplemental flexible pedicle screw system to protect the adjacent segment ("topping off").Follow-up examination will take place immediately after treatment during hospital stay, after 6 weeks, and then after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Subsequently, ongoing assessments will be performed annually.Outcome measurements will include quality of life and pain assessments using questionnaires (SF-36™, ODI, COMI). In addition, clinical and radiologic ASD, work-related disability, and duration of work disability will be assessed. Inpatient and 6-month mortality, surgery-related data (e.g., intraoperative complications, blood loss, length of incision, surgical duration), postoperative complications, adverse events, and serious adverse events will be documented and monitored throughout the study. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be provided. DISCUSSION: New hybrid systems might improve the outcome of lumbar spine fusion. To date, there is no convincing published data on effectiveness or safety of these topping off systems. High quality data is required to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of topping off devices. If only because these devices are quite expensive compared to conventional fusion implants, nonessential use should be avoided. In fact, these high costs necessitate efforts by health care providers to evaluate the effects of these implants. Randomized clinical trials are highly recommended to evaluate the benefits or harm to the patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01224379.

Whole body vibration compared to conventional physiotherapy in patients with gonarthrosis: a protocol for a randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative arthropathy. Load-bearing joints such as knee and hip are more often affected than spine or hands. The prevalence of gonarthrosis is generally higher than that of coxarthrosis.Because no cure for OA exists, the main emphasis of therapy is analgesic treatment through either mobility or medication. Non-pharmacologic treatment is the first step, followed by the addition of analgesic medication, and ultimately by surgery.The goal of non-pharmacologic and non-invasive therapy is to improve neuromuscular function, which in turn both prevents formation of and delays progression of OA. A modification of conventional physiotherapy, whole body vibration has been successfully employed for several years. Since its introduction, this therapy is in wide use at our facility not only for gonarthrosis, but also coxarthrosis and other diseases leading to muscular imbalance. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a randomized, therapy-controlled trial in a primary care setting at a university hospital. Patients presenting to our outpatient clinic with initial symptoms of gonarthrosis will be assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. After patient consent, 6 weeks of treatment will ensue. During the six weeks of treatment, patients will receive one of two treatments, conventional physiotherapy or whole-body-vibration exercises of one hour three times a week. Follow-up examinations will be performed immediately after treatment and after another 6 and 20 weeks, for a total study duration of 6 months. 20 patients will be included in each therapy group.Outcome measurements will include objective analysis of motion and ambulation as well as examinations of balance and isokinetic force. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and SF-12 scores, the patients' overall status, and clinical examinations of the affected joint will be carried out. DISCUSSION: As new physiotherapy techniques develop for the treatment of OA, it is important to investigate the effectiveness of competing strategies. With this study, not only patient-based scores, but also objective assessments will be used to quantify patient-derived benefits of therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS) DRKS00000415Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01037972EudraCT 2009-017617-29.

Interspinous implants (X Stop, Wallis, Diam) for the treatment of LSS: is there a correlation between radiological parameters and clinical outcome?

Neurogenic intermittent claudication, caused by lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), usually occurs after the age of 50 and is one of the most common degenerative spinal diseases in the elderly. Among patients over the age of 65 with LSS, open decompression is the most frequently performed spinal operation. The recently introduced interspinous spacers are a new alternative under discussion. In this retrospective study, we reviewed medical records and radiographs of patients with LSS and NIC treated from June 2003 to June 2007. All included patients (n = 129) were treated with interspinous implants (X Stop Wallis, or Diam). Evaluations of pain, using a visual analog scale (VAS), and radiographic signs, using two-plane X-rays of the lumbar spine, were performed preoperatively (preop), postoperatively (postop) and after discharge (FU 2-3). Gender ratio (m:w) was 1.1:1. Mean age of the patients was 60.8 +/- 16.3 years. Foraminal height, foraminal width, foraminal cross-sectional area, intervertebral angle, as well as anterior and posterior disc height changed significantly (P < 0.0001) after implantation of the interspinous device. Postoperatively, symptom relief (VAS) was significant (P < 0.0001). The X Stop implant improved (in some cases significantly) the radiographic parameters of foraminal height, width, and cross-sectional area, more than the Diam and Wallis implants; however, there was no significant difference among the three regarding symptom relief. FU 1 was on average 202.3 +/- 231.9 and FU 2 527.2 +/- 377.0 days postoperatively. During FU, the radiological improvements seemed to revert toward initial values. Pain (VAS) did not increase despite this "loss of correction." There was no correlation between age and symptom improvement. There was only very weak correlation between the magnitude of radiographic improvement and the extent of pain relief (VAS). The interspinous implant did not worsen low-grade spondylolisthesis. Provided there is a strict indication and fusion is not required, implantation of an interspinous spacer is a good alternative to treat LSS. The interspinous implant offers significant, longlasting symptom control, even if initially significant radiological changes seem to revert toward the initial values ("loss of correction").

Clinical experiences with a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in lumbar spinal surgery: 2 years and no more.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic spine implants were developed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi). Purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of "topping off" devices following lumbar spinal fusion procedure using a PEEK-based dynamic rod system. Moreover, this study focused on the hypothesis that "topping off" devices can prevent ASD. METHODS: This prospective nonrandomized study included patients with indication for single-level lumbar fusion and radiological signs of ASD without instability. The exclusion criteria were previous lumbar spine surgery and no sign of disc degeneration in the adjacent segment according to magnetic resonance imaging. All patients were treated with single-level lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent segment. Patients underwent a clinical examination and radiographs preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Analyses were performed on clinical data collected with the German Spine Registry using the core outcome measure index (COMI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (6 male and 16 female) with an average age of 57.6 years were included in the study; 20 patients completed the follow-up (FU). The average COMI score was 9.0 preoperatively, 4.2 at the 1-year FU, and 4.7 at the 2-year FU. The average preoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 7.7 and 7.1, respectively. At the 1-year FU, the scores were 4.25 for back pain and 2.2 for leg pain, and at the 2-year FU, the scores were 4.7 for back pain and 2.3 for leg pain. At FU, failure of the dynamic topping off implant material was verified in four cases, and ASD of the segment cranial to the topping off was confirmed in three cases. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate significant improvements in clinical outcomes and pain reduction after lumbar spinal fusion with topping off at 2 years after surgery. However, the implant failed due to the high rate of implant failure and the development of ASD in the segment cranial to the dynamic stabilized segment.

The interspinous spacer: a clinicoanatomical investigation using plastination.

Purpose. The relatively new and less-invasive therapeutic alternative "interspinous process decompression device (IPD)" is expected to result in improved symptoms of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of the study was to analyze IPD position particularly regarding damage originating from surgical implantation. Methods. Anatomic assessments were performed on a fresh human cadaver. For the anatomic examination, the lumbar spine was plastinated after implantation of the IPDs. After radiographic control, serial 4 mm thick sections of the block plastinate were cut in the sagittal (L1-L3) and horizontal (L3-L5) planes. The macroanatomical positioning of the implants was then analyzed. The insertion procedure caused only little injury to osteoligamentous or muscular structures. The supraspinous ligament was completely intact, and the interspinous ligaments were not torn as was initially presupposed. No osseous changes at the spinal processes were apparent. Contact of the IPD with the spinous processes was visible, so that sufficient biomechanical limitation of the spinal extension seems likely. Conclusions. Minimally invasive IPD implantation with accurate positioning in the anterior portion of the interspinous place is possible without severe surgical trauma.