Skip to main content
Log in

Have Recent Vertebroplasty Trials Changed the Indications for Vertebroplasty?

  • Review Article/State of the Art
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two different investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine recently published two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. In their results, both investigators concluded that there was no significant difference in pain relief between the vertebroplasty group and control group 1 month after treatment. The trials described a different patient cohort from the one we treat with vertebroplasty. Both enrolled patients had back pain for ≤12 months. This duration of pain was far too long for a vertebroplasty trial, resulting in parallel trials of vertebroplasty on healed fractures. Where a study is needed, it should be comprised of patients with acute osteoporotic compression fractures, particularly those who are hospitalized or bedridden because of the pain of such fractures. Magnetic resonance imaging was not systematically performed before vertebroplasty, and inpatients were excluded. Inpatients with acute fracture pain are the group most likely to respond well to vertebroplasty. Enrolment was a problem in both trials. Randomization in both RCTs took >4 years for completion. We advise that vertebroplasty be offered to patients with recent fractures <8 weeks old who have uncontrolled pain as well as patients progressing to osteonecrosis and the intravertebral vacuum phenomenon (Kummels disease). The availability of recent MRI scanning is also critical to proper patient selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Melton LJ III, Thamer M, Ray NF, Chan JK, Chesnut CH III, Einhorn TA et al (1997) Fractures attributable to osteoporosis: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Miner Res 12:16–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 361:569–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C et al (2009) A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 361:557–568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinstein JN (2009) Balancing science and informed choice in decisions about vertebroplasty. N Engl J Med 361:619–621

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klazen CAH, Verhaar HJJ, Lampmann LEH et al (2007) VERTOS II: percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative therapy in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: rationale, objectives and design of a multi centre randomised controlled trial. Trials 8:33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of vertebroplasty for treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pham T, Azulay-Parrado J, Champsaur P, Chagnaud C, Legre V, Lafforgue P (2005) “Occult” osteoporotic vertebral fractures: vertebral body fractures without radiologic collapse. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(21):2430–2435

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rico H, Merono E, Del Olmo J, Revilla M (1991) The value of bone scintigraphy in the follow-up of vertebral osteoporosis. Clin Rheumatol 10:298–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Clinical Protocol: Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST). A controlled trial of percutaneous vertebroplasty IDE #G030091/S2. Presented to the St George Hospital Ethics Committee, Sydney, Australia

  10. Gray LA, Jarvik JG, Heagerty PJ et al (2007) Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous vertebroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bono C, Heggeness M, Mick C, Resnick D, Watters WC (2009) North American Spine Society Newly Released Vertebroplasty RCTs: a tale of two trials. On behalf of the North American Spine Society NASS 2009. www.spine.org.

  12. Rousing R, Andersen MO, Jespersen SM, Thomsen K, Lauritsen J (2009) Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared to conservative treatment in patients with painful acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: three-month follow-up in a clinical randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(13):1349–1354

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ploeg WT, Veldhuizen AG, The B, Sietsma MS (2006) Percutaneous vertebroplasty as a treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 15(12):1749–1758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, Bydon A, Gokaslan ZL (2009) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures: an evidenced-based review of the literature. Spine J 9(6):501–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bolster MB (2010) Consternation and questions about two vertebroplasty trials. Cleve Clin J Med 77:12–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Afshin Gangi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gangi, A., Clark, W.A. Have Recent Vertebroplasty Trials Changed the Indications for Vertebroplasty?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33, 677–680 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-010-9901-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-010-9901-3

Keywords

Navigation