Correction to: Preventive Vertebroplasty for Long-Term Consolidation of Vertebral Metastases.

In the original article, the following author name was incorrectly published and the corrected name is given below.

Preventive Vertebroplasty for Long-Term Consolidation of Vertebral Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the long-term consolidation of vertebral metastases (VM) after preventive vertebroplasty (PV) and to report risk factors of pathological fracture despite PV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Files of 100 consecutives cancer patients referred for PV of VM were retrospectively analyzed. We enumerated 215 VM at the time of the PV procedure (T0): 138 VM were considered at risk of pathological fracture and had PV (treated-VM), and 77 VM were not cemented. We compared the VM characteristics using the spine instability neoplastic score (SINS) at T0 and the rate of pathologic fracture between treated-VM and untreated-VM using Kaplan-Meier method. We analyzed risk factors of pathological fracture despite PV using treated-VM characteristics and quality of cement injection criteria. RESULTS: Despite a lower SINS value at T0 (p < 0.001), the rate of pathological fracture was significantly higher among untreated-VM compared to the treated-VM, (log-rank, p < 0.001). Major risk factors of fracture among treated-VM were: SINS value ≥ 8 (p < 0.012), mechanical pain (p = 0.001), osteolytic lesion (p = 0.033), metastatic vertebral body involvement > 50% with no collapse (p < 0.001) and unilateral posterior involvement by the vertebral metastasis (p = 0.024), Saliou score < 9 (p = 0.008), vertebral metastasis filling with cement < 50% (p = 0.007) and the absence of cement's contact with vertebral endplates (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: PV is long-term effective for consolidation of VM and must be discussed at the early diagnosed. Quality of cement injection matters, suggesting that techniques that improve the quantity and the quality of cement diffusion into the VM must be developed.

Assessment of procedural pain in French emergency departments: a multi-site, non-interventional, transverse study in patients with minor trauma injury.

Objective: To determine the mean number of procedural painful episodes per patient, and to retrieve information regarding diagnosis, therapeutic procedures and analgesic management, in patients visiting Emergency Departments (EDs) for minor trauma. Methods: This observational, non-interventional, multicenter study in adult patients was performed in 35 French EDs. All patients entering the EDs for minor trauma on a specified day between noon and 10 pm were registered; consenting patients were included in the study. Pain intensity was assessed using a verbal Numerical Rating Scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). An episode was described as painful if the difference in pain intensity between pain just before the procedure and maximal pain during the procedure was ≥2. Two independent nurses recorded data on 1 day in each center. Results: Overall, 909 patients were registered, 422 were included in the study, and complete data for 409 patients (1899 procedures) were available for analysis. The mean number of painful episodes per patient was 1.0 ± 1.3. Fifty-one percent of patients reported at least one painful procedure episode. Twenty-one percent of procedures were considered painful. Clinical examination was the procedure most often reported as painful. No preventive or curative analgesic treatment was reported in 95.1% of procedures. Conclusions: There is a need for improvement in routine pain assessment and, therefore, procedural pain management for ED patients. Specific protocols should be developed for procedural pain management, and teams should be trained especially for procedures usually not considered painful.