Management of Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture: Review Update 2022.

A vertebral fracture is the most common type of osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) cause a variety of morbidities and deaths. There are currently few "gold standard treatments" outlined for the management of OVFs in terms of quantity and quality. Conservative treatment is the primary treatment option for OVFs. The treatment of pain includes short-term bed rest, analgesic medication, anti-osteoporotic medications, exercise, and a brace. Numerous reports have been made on studies for vertebral augmentation (VA), including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. There is still debate and controversy about the effectiveness of VA in comparison with conservative treatment. Until more robust data are available, current evidence does not support the routine use of VA for OVF. Despite the fact that the majority of OVFs heal without surgery, 15%-35% of patients with an unstable fracture, persistent intractable back pain, or severely collapsed vertebra that causes a neurologic deficit, kyphosis, or chronic pseudarthrosis frequently require surgery. Because no single approach can guarantee the best surgical outcomes, customized surgical techniques are required. Surgeons must stay current on developments in the osteoporotic spine field and be open to new treatment options. Osteoporosis management and prevention are critical to lowering the risk of future OVFs. Clinical studies on bisphosphonate's effects on fracture healing are lacking. Teriparatide was intermittently administered, which dramatically improved spinal fusion and fracture healing while lowering mortality risk. According to the available literature, there are no standard management methods for OVFs. More multimodal approaches, including conservative and surgical treatment, VA, and medications that treat osteoporosis and promote fracture healing, are required to improve the quality of the majority of guidelines.

Direct reconstruction of chronic extensor digitorum longus tendon rupture using interposed scar tissue in the foot: A case report.

RATIONALE: Primary repair of acute ligament injury is possible due to the proximity of the ends. In the case of chronic injury, however, primary repair is difficult because the ends of ruptured ligament will have receded, and tendon graft, transfer, or reconstruction is needed. Satisfactory clinical results have been reported after reconstruction with newly formed interposed scar tissue between the ends of the ruptured tendon in chronic Achilles tendon injury and chronic extensor halluces longus (EHL) tendon injury. Here, we report a patient treated with reconstructive surgery using well-formed scar tissue between the ends in a case of chronic EDL tendon rupture. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 34-year-old woman visited the clinic with pain in the dorsum aspect of the right foot associated with weakness and loss of extension of the second toe. She had sustained an injury to the dorsal aspect of her foot by falling on broken glass 3 months before coming to our clinic. The patient reported pain and limitation of the extension of the second toe for 2 months. Her pain continued to worsen, and 1 month later she was transferred to our hospital because a different local clinician suspected she had ruptured her second EDL tendon. DIAGNOSIS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed complete rupture of the second EDL tendon at the metatarsal neck junction, with displacement of the distal end to the proximal phalanx shaft area and of the proximal end to the metatarsal shaft area. INTERVENTIONS: Chronic rupture of the EDL tendon was treated with direct reconstruction using interposed scar tissue. OUTCOMES: At the 3-month follow-up, the patient was almost asymptomatic and had nearly full range of motion in dorsiflexion of the second toe. She has no discomfort in her daily life and has returned to almost her preoperative level of functional activities. LESSONS: Here, we presented an extremely rare case of reconstruction using interposed scar tissue in a patient with neglected EDL tendon rupture. Direct reconstruction using interposed scar tissues located between the ends of the ruptured tendon is considered a reliable method with satisfactory clinical results in carefully selected patients.

Multimodal Analgesia (MMA) Versus Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) for One or Two-Level Posterior Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

A multimodal analgesic method was known to avoid the high-dose requirements and dose-dependent adverse events of opioids, and to achieve synergistic effects. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of our multimodal analgesia (MMA) regimen with that of the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) method for acute postoperative pain management. Patients who underwent one or two-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) followed by either MMA or PCA administration at our hospital were compared for pain score, additional opioid and non-opioid consumption, side effects, length of hospital stay, cost of pain control, and patient satisfaction. From 2016 through 2017, a total 146 of patients were screened. After propensity score matching, 66 remained in the PCA and 34 in the MMA group. Compared with the PCA group, the MMA group had a shorter length of hospital stay (median (interquartile range): 7 days (5-8) vs. 8 (7-11); P = 0.001) and lower cost of pain control (70.6 ± 0.9 USD vs. 173.4 ± 3.3, P < 0.001). Baseline data, clinical characteristics, pain score, additional non-opioid consumption, side effects, and patient subjective satisfaction score were similar between the two groups. The MMA seems to be a good alternative to the PCA after one or two-level PLF.