Abstract
Aim
The goal of this study was to specifically address the incidence of dorsal leakage when performing vertebroplasty in patients with posterior wall osteolysis or fracture, by using a delayed injection of cement with the aim of increasing its viscosity.
Materials and methods
We prospectively reviewed the records of 24 patients (13 women, 11 men; age range 42–67 years; mean age 54.7) with diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM) who underwent 34 vertebroplasties between January 2007 and January 2010 for painful osteolytic localization of MM with dorsal cortical osteolysis or fracture. All vertebroplasties were performed with an 8 min delay, which was half of the allotted injecting time given for the chosen cement. In 11 cases there were fractures involving the posterior wall, in 1 case with dorsal fragment dislocation, and in 33 cases there was dorsal cortical osteolysis. All of the patients showed no response to standard treatments such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and analgesic treatments.
Results
Technical success was achieved in all cases. In 20 patients, we treated only one high-risk vertebral lesion, in six patients we treated two segments, and in one patient we treated three segments. All patients experienced improvement in symptoms after the procedure as demonstrated by improved visual analogue scores (VAS) and performance status (PS) and decreased doses of analgesic. There was a dorsal leakage in 2/34 (5.8%) treated vertebral bodies in which an epidural space tumor extension was also diagnosed, without increasing neurological symptoms after the intervention.
Conclusion
From these results vertebroplasty with delayed injection of cement is safe and effective in the treatment of vertebral localization of myeloma with osteolysis or fracture of the posterior vertebral wall.
References
Georgy B. Metastatic spinal lesions: state-of-the-art treatment options and future trends. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:1605–11.
De Vrind HH, Wondergem J, Haveman J. Hyperthermia induced damage to rat sciatic nerve assessed in vivo with functional methods and with electrophysiology. J Neurosci Meth. 1992;45(3):165–74.
Anselmetti GC, Manca A, Kanika K, et al. Temperature measurement during polymerization of bone cement in percutaneous vertebroplasty: an in vivo study in humans. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009;32(3):491–8.
Oakland RJ, Furtado NR, Timothy J, Hall RM. The biomechanics of vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma and metastatic bladder cancer: a preliminary cadaveric investigation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9(5):493–501.
McDonald RJ, Trout AT, Gray LA, et al. Vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma: outcomes in a large patient series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29:642–48.
Chiras J, Depriester C, Weill A, et al. Percutaneous vertebral surgery: techniques and indications. J Neuroradiol. 1997;24:45–59.
Mousavi P, Roth S, Finkelstein J, et al. Volumetric quantification of cement leakage following percutaneous vertebroplasty in metastatic and osteoporotic vertebrae. J Neurosurg. 2003;99:56–9.
Reidy D, Ahn H, Mousavi P, et al. A biomechanical analysis of intravertebral pressures during vertebroplasty of cadaveric spines with and without simulated metastases. Spine. 2003;28:1534–39.
Saliou G, el Kocheida M, Lehmann P, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for pain management in malignant fractures of the spine with epidural involvement. Radiology. 2010;254(3):882–90.
Georgy BA. Clinical experience with high-viscosity cements for percutaneous vertebral body augmentation: occurrence, degree, and location of cement leakage compared with kyphoplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31(3):504–8.
Hiwatashi A, Westesson PL. Vertebroplasty for osteoporotic fractures with spinal canal compromise. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:690–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Basile, A., Cavalli, M., Fiumara, P. et al. Vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma with osteolysis or fracture of the posterior vertebral wall. Usefulness of a delayed cement injection. Skeletal Radiol 40, 913–919 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1114-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1114-6