Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • AJNR Awards
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • AJNR Awards
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR at ASNR25 | Join us at BOOTH 312 and more. Check out our schedule

Research ArticleSpine

Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty with the Patient under Intravenous Analgesia and Sedation: A Feasibility Study

M. Mohr, D. Pillich, M. Kirsch, J.U. Mueller, S. Fleck, N. Hosten and S. Langner
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2011, 32 (4) 649-653; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2345
M. Mohr
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Pillich
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Kirsch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J.U. Mueller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Fleck
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
N. Hosten
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Langner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Kyphoplasty is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of malignant or osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, normally performed with the patient under general anesthesia. This may cause a therapeutic dilemma because these patients often have a very high risk for general anesthesia due to concomitant diseases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of percutaneous kyphoplasty by using IV anesthesia and sedation with midazolam and piritramide.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2007 to June 2009, we prospectively included 133 patients (77 women, 56 men; mean age, 69.18 ± 11.45 years) who were referred for BKP. Kyphoplasty was always performed under fluoroscopic guidance with a biplane angiographic system by using a transpedicular or extrapedicular approach. The individual anesthesia risk was assessed by using the ASA criteria. All procedures were performed with the patient under IV anesthesia and sedation with fractionated administration of midazolam and piritramide. Pain was assessed before and after treatment by using a VAS.

RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (74.4%) had a significantly increased risk for general anesthesia (ASA score, ≥ 3). A total of 162 kyphoplasty procedures were performed. The mean amounts of midazolam and piritramide used were 11.3 ± 4.38 mg and 11.8 ± 3.98 mg, respectively. No complications related to IV anesthesia and sedation occurred. Periprocedural pain management was rated as sufficient, and all patients would undergo the procedure again.

CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous BKP with the patient under IV anesthesia and sedation with midazolam and piritramide is a safe and feasible method for treating vertebral compression fractures in patients with an increased risk for general anesthesia.

Abbreviations

ASA
American Society of Anesthesiologists
BKP
balloon kyphoplasty
IV
intravenous
VAS
visual analog scale
VB
vertebral body
VP
vertebroplasty

BKP and VP are 2 minimally invasive percutaneous interventions for the treatment of several vertebral diseases.1 Vertebral compression fractures related to osteoporosis1 and due to malignant causes2 are the main pathologic conditions treated. Both approaches have been investigated in numerous studies and are considered to be equally effective in relieving pain and restoring mobility.3,4

Published data indicate that VP is generally performed with the patient under local anesthesia with conscious sedation.3,5,6 BKP, which is technically more demanding and complex, is typically performed with the patient under general anesthesia.6,–,8 However, patients undergoing this treatment are generally older and have numerous illnesses simultaneously,4,9 increasing the risk of anesthesia-related complications. There are a number of studies describing the anesthesia procedures used for VP,10,11 but to the best of our knowledge, there is no report about BKP with the patient under conscious sedation in the literature so far.

The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility and safety of performing BKP in osteoporotic and metastatic vertebral fractures by using conscious sedation with piritramide and midazolam.

Materials and Methods

The study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Between June 2007 and June 2009, 133 consecutive patients were prospectively included in the study. There were 77 women and 56 men with a mean age of 69.18 ± 11.45 years (median, 70 years; range, 22–90 years). Indications for BKP were established by a multidisciplinary neurosurgical-neuroradiologic team.

Vertebral fractures were classified according to the scheme proposed by Magerl et al.12 The 3 types of fractures in this classification have a fundamental pattern, which is determined by the 3 most important mechanisms of injury: compression, distraction, and axial torque. Type A lesions focus on the injury to the vertebral body (vertebral compression fracture). Type B injuries are characterized by disruption either anteriorly or posteriorly, and type C lesions are injury patterns resulting from axial torque. Eligible patients had 1 or several acute vertebral compression fractures (Magerl type A) or metastatic disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine with a risk of vertebral collapse. The patients included had clinical signs and symptoms related to the affected vertebra. Not included were vertebral fractures due to trauma in patients younger than 30 years of age, fractures involving the posterior border with posterior displacement of a fragment or narrowing of the spinal canal, and vertebral fractures associated with neurologic deficits.1,13

The preinterventional evaluation included medical history and clinical examination with assessment of the neurologic status, conventional radiography of the affected spinal segment in 2 planes, and a CT scan of the vertebral level for evaluation of posterior stability. If the age of the fracture was unknown or if several osteoporotic compression fractures were present on plain radiographs, additional MR imaging with fat-saturated T2-weighted imaging was performed to detect bone marrow edema as an indicator of a recent compression fracture.2

Each patient's physical status was assessed before the intervention to estimate the anesthesia risk according to the criteria of the ASA. Evaluation of pain quality and intensity was performed by using a VAS.

All interventions were performed by using a biplane angiography unit (Integris IV; Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands). Kyphoplasty was bilateral transpedicular for lumbar vertebrae and transpedicular or extrapedicular for thoracic fractures. Each patient received a single IV infusion of ampicillin/sulbactam prior to the intervention. All patients were positioned prone, with the spine extended by placing supports under the thorax and the pelvis to facilitate augmentation of the collapsed vertebra.14,15

Ten milliliters of lidocaine 1% was infiltrated from the skin to the periosteum of the targeted pedicle. BKP was performed by using a standard kyphoplasty kit (KyphoPak Tray; Kyphon, Sunnyvale, California) following published guidelines.4 In patients with a vertebral fracture of other etiology than osteoporosis, a biopsy was obtained for histologic work-up (Table).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Demographic and peri-interventional data of the patient cohort

BKP was performed with the patient under conscious sedation with IV administration of piritramide and midazolam for anesthesia and sedation in all patients. During intervention, continuous pulse oxymetry and electrocardiography and noninvasive blood pressure measurements at 5-minute intervals monitored patients. All patients were given oxygen via a facemask at a flow rate of 2 l/min. This was increased at the discretion of the interventional radiologist if it was deemed necessary. Peri-interventionally, the depth of sedation was assessed by using surrogate parameters including pain-related reactions such as movements or facial expressions and physiologic parameters such as heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate. With respect to these parameters, the administration of piritramide and midazolam was adjusted as needed. The drugs were administered separately in 0.5-mg intervals, followed by a slow saline flush of 10 mL after each medication.

Monitoring was continued on the ward for 6 hours on completion of the intervention. The patient's neurologic status was assessed immediately after the intervention, at 6 hours, and the next day. On the day after the intervention, patients were asked to rate on a 5-point scale (0 = maximum pain, 5 = no pain) whether pain medication during intervention was sufficient and whether they would undergo the procedure again. Postinterventional pain was evaluated by using the VAS score, and conventional radiographs in 2 planes of the treated vertebra were obtained.

Statistical analysis was performed by using the Student t test and the χ2 test. For statistical analysis, patients were divided in 2 groups by ASA criteria (ASA group I = ASA < 3; ASA group II = ASA ≥ 3) and by age (age group I, <65 years; age group II, ≥65 years). Total dose of piritramide and midazolam versus age and ASA score was analyzed by using the correlations test. The significance of the correlation coefficient r was calculated, and P ≤ .05 was considered significant. We performed all statistical analysis by using Version 14 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois).

Results

According to ASA criteria, 74.4% of patients (n = 99) in the cohort had a markedly increased surgical risk (ASA score, ≥3). In these patients, BKP was performed on a total of 162 vertebrae. No more than 3 vertebral bodies were treated per session (Table). The number of vertebral levels treated per session was as follows: 1 vertebral level in 85% of cases (n = 113), 2 in 8.3% (n = 11), and 3 vertebrae in 6.8% of patients (n = 9). The underlying cause of vertebral fractures was osteoporosis in 64.7% (n = 86), metastases of known primary in 16.5% (n = 22), metastases of unknown primary in 4.5% (n = 6), plasmocytoma in 11.3% (n = 15), and lymphoma in 3% (n = 4).

The average duration of all interventions was 64.2 ± 25.6 minutes. The mean duration by number of vertebrae treated per intervention was 57.9 ± 24.2 minutes, 79.58 ± 28.8 minutes, and 70.0 ± 24.9 minutes for 1, 2, and 3 vertebral bodies, respectively.

Two interventions had to be discontinued (1.89%). One patient had a concomitant clavicular fracture, which precluded prone positioning; in the other case, no adequate anesthesia and sedation were achieved, and the attempt was aborted following local anesthesia. This was related to analgesic abuse, which was discovered afterward.

The mean amounts of piritramide and midazolam administered per patient were 11.8 ± 3.98 and 11.3 ± 4.38 mg, respectively. The amounts required according to the number of vertebrae treated were the following: 11.41 ± 4.29 mg of piritramide and 10.8 ± 4.4 mg of midazolam for 1 vertebra, 12.6 ± 3.0 and 11.9 ± 3.8 mg for 2, and 13.11 ± 3.4 and 14.0 ± 3.9 mg for 3 vertebrae. Demographic and peri-interventional details are provided in the Table. There was a significant correlation between age and the mean amount of piritramide (r = −0.334, P = .01; Fig 1A) and midazolam (r = −0.358, P = .01; Fig 1B). However, the difference for the mean amount of midazolam and piritramide was not significant for both age groups (P = .63). A significant correlation for ASA score was not observed either for piritramide (r = −0.09, P = .29) or for midazolam (r = −0.04, P = .64). The difference between both ASA groups with respect to the amounts of piritramide and midazolam needed was not significant (P = .66). No complications related to anesthesia and sedation were observed. There was no neurologic deterioration in any of the patients after the intervention, and clinically relevant cement leakage was not observed.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

A, Mean amount of piritramide for anesthesia during conscious sedation. The x-axis represents the age (years); the y-axis, the amount of piritramide (milligrams) used. The correlation was significant (r = −0.334, P = .01). B, Mean amount of midazolam for conscious sedation. The x-axis represents the age (years); the y-axis, the amount of midazolam (milligrams) used. The correlation was significant (r = −0.358, P = .01).

The initial mean VAS score was 8.3 (median, 8; range, 7–9). On follow-up the next day, there was significant reduction, with a mean VAS score of 2.4 (median, 3; range, 1–5; P < .05). According to the questionnaire, all patients would undergo the procedure again and rated peri-interventional anesthesia as sufficient.

Discussion

Since it was first described for treating osteoporotic spinal compression fractures in 2001, the indication for BKP has expanded considerably, now also including traumatic and pathologic fractures as well as spinal metastasis, with the risk of vertebral fracture or lesions associated with multiple myeloma1,3 leading to an increased number of procedures every year.

Despite 2 recent reports,16,17 the rapid pain relief afforded by both VP and BKP has been confirmed in numerous studies,18 and this effect is attributed to the immobilization of the fracture fragments by the injected cement.4,9,19 Published data suggest that the 2 interventional techniques are equally effective in terms of pain relief and patient mobility.4,20 However, several studies indicate that BKP has a lower risk of clinically relevant cement leakage.21,–,23

Our study demonstrates that BKP with the patient under conscious sedation by using piritramide and midazolam is a safe and feasible method, particularly with regard to patients with increased risk for general anesthesia. Therefore, BKP becomes a true minimally invasive percutaneous treatment procedure like VP.

Unlike VP, most investigators prefer to perform BKP with the patient under general anesthesia because of the pain associated with balloon inflation and the longer duration of the intervention compared with VP.6,22,24 There are numerous reports in the literature about pain management during VP, ranging from local infiltration anesthesia to general anesthesia in the operating room.24,25 Hierholzer et al3 initially performed VP by using general anesthesia. On the basis of their experience, they then used IV neuroleptanalgesia within the course of the procedure. They stated that this technique is less stressful and demanding. One limitation of their study is that the authors do not mention the medication used within the course of the procedure.

The use of midazolam for conscious sedation is well-established in interventional radiologic procedures.26,27 The use of higher amounts carries the risk of apnea,28 which can be specifically treated with flumazenil.26,28 In our study, we therefore titrated midazolam with respect to the surrogate parameters for the depth of sedation. The overall mean amount of midazolam was 11.3 ± 4.38 mg, which is slightly above the amounts reported in the literature for VP.3,27 This might be related to the pain associated with the inflation of the balloons.22,24 In a recent study, a protocol of titrated conscious sedation with fentanyl and propofol and monitoring of vital parameters with good tolerance for the method has been described.10 Propofol has to be applied by continuous infusion; and compared with midazolam, it is not anxiolytic. On the other hand, propofol carries a risk for upper airway collapse and also relevant respiratory depression.24

Piritramide is also well-established in radiologic interventional procedures.26,27 The amounts used for BKP in our study are within the range reported in the literature for VP.27 An advantage of conscious sedation with piritramide and midazolam is the presence of flumazenil and naloxone as antagonists for benzodiazepines and opioids, respectively. However, resuscitation procedures or medical antagonization were not necessary in our patient cohort. With this medication, conscious sedation and anesthesia were rated as sufficient by all patients (mean postinterventional score, 4.7; range, 4–5), and all patients would undergo the procedure again.

Using a biplane angiography unit, we achieved an average intervention time for a single vertebral body of 57.9 ± 24.2 minutes. This is in concordance with the results reported in other studies. In a prospective study, Wilhelm et al29 reported an average room time of 63 minutes for single-level BKP with the patient under general anesthesia in a similar study population. In our opinion, biplane fluoroscopy significantly contributed to the reduced intervention time, because planning of the access path and introduction of the working cannula and the balloons are significantly improved compared with single-plane fluoroscopy often used in the operating room. In addition, the intervention time mentioned by Wilhelm et al did not include the time required for introduction and reversal of anesthesia. This extra time is not needed when BKP is performed with the patient under conscious sedation.

Complications of BKP are related to leakage into the spinal canal or other related structures and are not usually clinically relevant.30–32 Severe complications, such as infections, neural damage, or pulmonary embolism are extremely uncommon.33 For technical reasons, inadvertent cement leakage is more common in VP compared with kyphoplasty.21 This is supported by the results of our study. We observed no clinically relevant leakage in a study population comparable with the series published in the literature in terms of age, sex, and location of the affected vertebra.21,34

Our study has a few limitations that should be mentioned. First, long-term results of pain reduction and vertebral height restoration are lacking. However, the aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of BKP with the patient under conscious sedation by using piritramide and midazolam. Therefore, no patient was followed up for >1 year, and we did not obtain data of height restoration of the treated VBs or reduction of kyphosis. Second, the number of patients in whom 2 or 3 VBs were treated is relatively small for the evaluation of statistical differences regarding intervention times and analgesic and sedative requirements for multilevel BKP. In addition, the study population was heterogeneous in terms of fracture cause. While this heterogeneity may impair comparability between the groups, it may, on the other hand, reflect the patient population likely to be candidates for BKP in the clinical setting and is shared by other recent studies.3,8,21,34

Conclusions

BKP with conscious sedation by using piritramide and midazolam is a safe and feasible method for minimally invasive treatment of metastatic and osteoporotic vertebral fractures in patients with increased anesthesia risk.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Garfin SR,
    2. Yuan HA,
    3. Reiley MA
    . New technologies in spine: kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1511–15
    CrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Georgy BA
    . Metastatic spinal lesions: state-of-the-art treatment options and future trends. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1605–11
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Hierholzer J,
    2. Depriester C,
    3. Fuchs H,
    4. et al
    . Percutaneous vertebroplasty [in German]. Rofo 2002;174:328–34
    PubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Jensen ME,
    2. McGraw JK,
    3. Cardella JF,
    4. et al
    . Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a consensus statement developed by the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, Society of Interventional Radiology, American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and American Society of Spine Radiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1439–43
    FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Heini PF,
    2. Walchli B,
    3. Berlemann U
    . Percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty with PMMA: operative technique and early results—a prospective study for the treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures. Eur Spine J 2000;9:445–50
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kobayashi K,
    2. Shimoyama K,
    3. Nakamura K,
    4. et al
    . Percutaneous vertebroplasty immediately relieves pain of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and prevents prolonged immobilization of patients. Eur Radiol 2005;15:360–67
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Berlemann U,
    2. Franz T,
    3. Orler R,
    4. et al
    . Kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a prospective non-randomized study. Eur Spine J 2004;13:496–501
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kasperk C,
    2. Noldge G,
    3. Grafe I,
    4. et al
    . Indications and results of kypho- and vertebroplasty [in German]. Internist (Berl) 2008;49:1206,8–10, 12–18
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lieberman IH,
    2. Dudeney S,
    3. Reinhardt MK,
    4. et al
    . Initial outcome and efficacy of “kyphoplasty” in the treatment of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26:1631–38
    CrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Della Puppa A,
    2. Andreula C,
    3. Frass M
    . Assisted sedation: a safe and easy method for pain-free percutaneous vertebroplasty. Minerva Anestesiol 2008;74:57–62
    PubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Voormolen MH,
    2. Mali WP,
    3. Lohle PN,
    4. et al
    . Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with optimal pain medication treatment: short-term clinical outcome of patients with subacute or chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures—the VERTOS study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:555–60
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Magerl F,
    2. Aebi M,
    3. Gertzbein SD,
    4. et al
    . A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 1994;3:184–201
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Klimo P Jr.,
    2. Schmidt MH
    . Surgical management of spinal metastases. Oncologist 2004;9:188–96
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hiwatashi A,
    2. Moritani T,
    3. Numaguchi Y,
    4. et al
    . Increase in vertebral body height after vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:185–89
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Teng MM,
    2. Wei CJ,
    3. Wei LC,
    4. et al
    . Kyphosis correction and height restoration effects of percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1893–900
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Buchbinder R,
    2. Osborne RH,
    3. Ebeling PR,
    4. et al
    . A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:557–68
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kallmes DF,
    2. Comstock BA,
    3. Heagerty PJ,
    4. et al
    . A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:569–79
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Baerlocher MO,
    2. Munk PL,
    3. Liu DM,
    4. et al
    . Clinical utility of vertebroplasty: need for better evidence. Radiology 2010;255:669–74
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Santiago FR,
    2. Abela AP,
    3. Alvarez LG,
    4. et al
    . Pain and functional outcome after vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a comparative study. Eur J Radiol 2010;75:e108–13.Epub 2010 Feb 6
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Schulte BU,
    2. Brucher D,
    3. Trompeter M,
    4. et al
    . Balloon-assisted percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: first results [in German]. Rofo 2006;178:207–13
    PubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Eck JC,
    2. Nachtigall D,
    3. Humphreys SC,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of the literature. Spine J 2008;8:488–97
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Heini PF,
    2. Orler R
    . Kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Eur Spine J 2004;13:184–92
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hulme PA,
    2. Krebs J,
    3. Ferguson SJ,
    4. et al
    . Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:1983–2001
    CrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Luginbuhl M
    . Percutaneous vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty and lordoplasty: implications for the anesthesiologist. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2008;21:504–13
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Venmans A,
    2. Klazen CA,
    3. Lohle PN,
    4. et al
    . Percutaneous vertebroplasty and procedural pain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:830–31
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Linsenmaier U,
    2. Wagner P,
    3. Pfeifer KJ,
    4. et al
    . Sedation analgesia in interventional radiology [in German]. Rofo 2002;174:208–15
    PubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Pitton MB,
    2. Drees P,
    3. Schneider J,
    4. et al
    . Evaluation of percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures using a combination of CT fluoroscopy and conventional lateral fluoroscopy [in German]. Rofo 2004;176:1005–12
    PubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Reves JG,
    2. Fragen RJ,
    3. Vinik HR,
    4. et al
    . Midazolam: pharmacology and uses. Anesthesiology 1985;62:310–24
    PubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Wilhelm K,
    2. Stoffel M,
    3. Ringel F,
    4. et al
    . Preliminary experience with balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of painful osteoporotic compression fractures [in German]. Rofo 2003;175:1690–96
    PubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Jensen ME,
    2. Dion JE
    . Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2000;10:547–68
    PubMed
  31. 31.
    1. Levine SA,
    2. Perin LA,
    3. Hayes D,
    4. et al
    . An evidence-based evaluation of percutaneous vertebroplasty. Manag Care 2000;9:56–60,63
    PubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Yeom JS,
    2. Kim WJ,
    3. Choy WS,
    4. et al
    . Leakage of cement in percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic compression fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:83–89
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Jang JS,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Jung SK
    . Pulmonary embolism of polymethylmethacrylate after percutaneous vertebroplasty: a report of three cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:E416–18
    CrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hillmeier J,
    2. Meeder PJ,
    3. Noldge G,
    4. et al
    . Balloon kyphoplasty of vertebral compression fractures with a new calcium phosphate cement [in German]. Orthopade 2004;33:31–39
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received July 13, 2010.
  • Accepted after revision August 23, 2010.
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 32 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 32, Issue 4
1 Apr 2011
  • 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.
Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty with the Patient under Intravenous Analgesia and Sedation: A Feasibility Study
(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.
Cite this article
M. Mohr, D. Pillich, M. Kirsch, J.U. Mueller, S. Fleck, N. Hosten, S. Langner
Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty with the Patient under Intravenous Analgesia and Sedation: A Feasibility Study
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2011, 32 (4) 649-653; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2345

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty with the Patient under Intravenous Analgesia and Sedation: A Feasibility Study
M. Mohr, D. Pillich, M. Kirsch, J.U. Mueller, S. Fleck, N. Hosten, S. Langner
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2011, 32 (4) 649-653; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2345
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref (13)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Comparison of remifentanil with dexmedetomidine for monitored anaesthesia care in elderly patients during vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty
    Jung Min Lee, Soo Kyung Lee, Sang Jun Lee, Woon Suk Hwang, Sung Wook Jang, Eun Young Park
    Journal of International Medical Research 2016 44 2
  • Vertebroplastie und Kyphoplastie
    Sönke Langner, Christian Henker
    Der Radiologe 2020 60 2
  • Do the dynamic stress mobility radiographs predict the postoperative vertebral height restoration, kyphosis correction, and cement volume injected after vertebroplasty for osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures with intravertebral cleft?
    Chee Kidd Chiu, Kulathunga Arachchige Lisitha, Dahlia Munchar Elias, Voon Wei Yong, Chris Yin Wei Chan, Mun Keong Kwan
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2018 26 3
  • Effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block versus local anesthesia for percutaneous kyphoplasty in patients with osteoporotic compression fracture
    Xiqiang Zhong, Haijie Xia, Yimin Li, Chengxuan Tang, Xiaojun Tang, Shaoqi He
    Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation 2022 35 6
  • Preoperative prone position exercises: a simple and novel method to improve tolerance to kyphoplasty for treatment of single level osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures
    Guangzhou Li, Hao Liu, Qing Wang, Dejun Zhong
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2017 18 1
  • Epidural analgesia for percutaneous kyphoplasty in a patient with multiple medical comorbidities
    Waseem S Alfahel, Alia S Dabbous, Mark E Thompson
    Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2019 9 02
  • Comparison of the Effectiveness of Anesthesia Methods on Percutaneous Kyphoplasty: Erector Spinae Plane Block Versus Local Anesthesia
    Meliha Orhon Ergün, Yahya Güvenç
    Istanbul Medical Journal 2022 23 2
  • Vertebral Augmentation for Osteoporotic Compression Fractures
    Bradford J. Richmond
    Journal of Clinical Densitometry 2016 19 1
  • Handbook of Spine Technology
    Scott A. Vincent, Emmett J. Gannon, Don K. Moore
    2021
  • Handbook of Spine Technology
    Scott A. Vincent, Emmett J. Gannon, Don K. Moore
    2020

More in this TOC Section

  • Bern Score Validity for SIH
  • MP2RAGE 7T in MS Lesions of the Cervical Spine
  • Resisted Inspiration for CSF-Venous Fistula
Show more Spine

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire