Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Research ArticleSpine

Vertebroplasty: What Is Important and What Is Not

F. Al-Ali, T. Barrow and K. Luke
American Journal of Neuroradiology November 2009, 30 (10) 1835-1839; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1732
F. Al-Ali
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Barrow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K. Luke
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure.

    Distribution of primary and secondary vertebral compression fractures in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Note: Primary fractures are first-time fractures for which vertebroplasty was performed. Secondary fractures are subsequent new fractures that are adjacent or nonadjacent to the primary fractures.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Characteristics of patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (N = 357)

    Characteristic
    Mean age ± SD (range), years77.5 ± 9.5 (40–98)
    No. (%) female263 (74)
    Total number of VCFs660
        No. (%) primary VCFs*489 (74)
        No. (%) secondary VCFs†171 (26)
    Preprocedure VAS pain intensity—all fractures
        N652
        Mean ± SD7.9 ± 2.2
        Median8.0
        Range0–10
    Postprocedure VAS pain intensity—all fractures
        N560
        Mean ± SD1.6 ± 2.8
        Median0
        Range0–10
    Pain improvement—all fractures
        N560
        Mean ± SD−6.2 ± 3.5
        Median−7.0
        Range−10.0–6.0
    • Note:—VAS indicates visual analog scale.

    • * Primary vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are first-time fractures for which vertebroplasty was performed.

    • † Secondary VCFs are subsequent new fractures that are adjacent or nonadjacent to the primary fractures.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Volume of cement injected and distribution (osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures)

    All Fractures (N = 660)
    Amount of cement injected (cc)—all fractures
        N652
        Mean ± SD*5.1 ± 2.2
        Range1.0–16.0
    Amount of cement injected by spinal group (cc)
        T3–T8
            N151
            Mean ± SD3.5 ± 1.2
            Range1.0–8.0
        T9–T12
            N218
            Mean ± SD5.0 ± 2.0
            Range1.0–11.0
        L1–L5
            N283
            Mean ± SD6.0 ± 2.3
            Range1.0–16.0
    Anterior cement fill (%)
        N649
        Mean ± SD63.8 ± 23.1
        Range0–100
    Posterior cement fill (%)
        N649
        Mean ± SD54.0 ± 23.9
        Range0–100
    Cement crossed midline
        N660
        Yes555 (84%)
    Any extravasation
        N660
        Yes219 (33%)
    Intravascular extravasation
        N660
        Yes61 (9%)
    Extravascular extravasation
        N660
        Yes164 (25%)
    Extravasation into disk
        N660
        Yes111 (17%)
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 30 (10)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 30, Issue 10
1 Nov 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Vertebroplasty: What Is Important and What Is Not
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Vertebroplasty: What Is Important and What Is Not
F. Al-Ali, T. Barrow, K. Luke
American Journal of Neuroradiology Nov 2009, 30 (10) 1835-1839; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1732

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Vertebroplasty: What Is Important and What Is Not
F. Al-Ali, T. Barrow, K. Luke
American Journal of Neuroradiology Nov 2009, 30 (10) 1835-1839; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1732
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Vertebral Augmentation for Compression Fractures Caused by Malignant Disease
  • Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Is Not a Risk Factor for New Osteoporotic Compression Fractures: Results from VERTOS II
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Postoperative Lumbar Fusion Bone Morphogenic Protein–Related Epidural Cyst Formation
  • Modified Dynamic CT Myelography for Type 1 and 2 CSF Leaks: A Procedural Approach
  • Conebeam CT as an Adjunct to Digital Subtraction Myelography for Detection of CSF-Venous Fistulas
Show more SPINE

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire