Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 Apr 23;100(16):e25396. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025396

A meta-analysis of the secondary fractures for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty

Gongwei Zhai a,b, Ang Li b, Binfeng Liu c, Dongbo Lv b, Jingyi Zhang b, Weichao Sheng b, Guang Yang b, YanZheng Gao b,∗
Editor: Arjun Ballal
PMCID: PMC8078370  PMID: 33879670

Abstract

To identify the risk factors of the secondary fractures for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) after percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP).

We conducted a search of relevant articles using Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Embase, the Web of Science and other databases. The time range we retrieved from establishment of the electronic database to November 2017. Gray studies were found in the references of included literature reports. STATA version 11.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas) was used to analyze the pooled data.

Fourteen studies involving 1910 patients, 395 of whom had fracture secondary to the surgery were included in this meta-analysis. The result of meta-analyses showed the risk factors of the secondary fractures for OVCFs after PVP was related to bone mineral density (BMD) [95%CI (−0.650, −0.164), SMD=−0.407, P=.001], cement leakage ((RR=0.596, 95%CI (0.444,0.798), P = .001)), and kyphosis after primary operation ((SMD=0.741, 95%CI (0.449,1.032), P = .000)), but not to gender, age, body mass index, cement volume, thoracolumbar spine, and cement injection approaches.

Bone mineral density, cement leakage, and kyphosis after primary operation are the risk factors closely correlative to the secondary fracture after PVP. There have not been enough evidences to support the association between the secondary fracture and gender, age, body mass index, cement volume, thoracolumbar spine, and cement injection approaches.

Keywords: osteoporosis, secondary fracture, spinal fractures, systematic review, vertebroplasty

1. Introduction

Osteoporosis is a systemic disease with progressive dicalcium and bone structure abnormality, which could result in compression fracture even under a slight external force (falling, lifting heavy objects, coughing violently).[1,2] Osteoporotic fracture often occurred in spine, hip, and distal radius. In addition, osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) is the most common fracture, which accounted for more than 1/3.[3–5] Patients with OVCF have a series of symptoms such as back pain and kyphosis, which can seriously affect their life quality.[6] Furthermore, the type of fracture has a slow healing, accompanied by a high rate of disability and death.[7] The traditional treatment methods include bed rest, drug analgesia, or bracing external fixation, which could resulted in a vicious circle of decalcification of bone, progresses of severe pain, kyphotic deformity, and increasing mortality.[8] For the treatment of OVCF, percutaneous vertebrolplasty (PVP) as an effect technology has minimally invasive pain and rapid recovery. Through injecting bone cement into the target vertebral body, the vertebroplasty was successful performed. Accumulating physicians and patients have been obtained the identification of surgical procedure of PVP.[9,10] However, numerous clinical data have been confirmed that the incidence of nonsurgical vertebral fractures was 8% to 52%, and 41% to 69% of the secondary fractures occurred in the adjacent segment of the vertebral body.[11–13] Lin et al[14] believed that the stiffness and other biomechanical factors of the injured vertebral bone cement injection lead to changes in biomechanics of the whole spine, resulting in significant changes in the pressure of adjacent vertebral body. Though, the bulk of the data showed that the gender (significantly more women than men), age (mainly 60–80 years old), bone mineral density (BMD), cement volume, cement leakage are the underlying inducements. PVP-related risk factors of postoperative secondary fractures are not consistent in OVCF patients.[15,16] Therefore, we collected literatures on the related factors of vertebral fracture after PVP of OVCF patients, also assessed the effects of these factors on vertebral secondary fractures through meta-analysis.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Literature and search strategy

The retrieved object is the research literature on the analysis of secondary fractures of OVCF following PVP operation published publicly in the electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science from 1966 to November 2017. The search strategy was based on combination with Boolean logic: osteoporosis, vertebral compression fracture, PVP, subsequent fracture, secondary fractures. In addition, the study of the appraisal reference list was manually checked to determine other potential eligibility tests. The process will iterate until more projects cannot be identified. The Meta-analysis is based on accepted PRISMA criteria (priority reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis).

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

If the literature conforms to the following principles, these articles will be included in this meta-analysis:

  • 1.

    OVCF patients undergoing PVP surgery;

  • 2.

    analysis of related risk factors for postoperative patients with secondary fractures;

  • 3.

    an official published RCTs or nonRCTs full-text English-written articles;

  • 4.

    one or more adequate data of the outcomes could be conducted statistical analysis;

2.3. Data extraction and outcome measures

Two reviewers (Zhai Gongwei and Li Ang) extracted data from the included studies. The following essential information was captured: first author names, samples size, publication year, outcomes, study design, and other relevant data. The extracted data (range and size of the experiment, median, MD, and SD) are input into the designed standardized table. When there are differences of opinion, the controversies were settled by consensus or discussion with a 3rd author (Liu Binfeng). The outcome measurements were gender, age, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density (BMD), cement volume, intradiscal cement, thoracolumbar spine, cement injection approach, kyphosis after primary operation.

2.4. Quality assessment and statistical analysis

Tool of Cochrane Bone, methodological index for non-randomized studies and the Joint and Muscle Trauma Group were used to evaluate the quality of RCT and nonRCTs. Literature quality assessment is conducted by 2 reviewers (BFL, AL). Consensus was reached through consultation for divergence. We used Stata version 11.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas) for statistical analysis. When I2 > 50%, we considered that the data had obvious heterogeneity, and meta-analysis was conducted using random effect model according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0). Otherwise, the fixed effect model is adopted. The continuous outcomes (age, BMI, BMD, cement volume, cement leakage) were expressed as 95% confidence interval (CIs) mean deviation (MD). For discontinuous various outcomes (gender, cement injection approach, kyphosis after primary operation, thoracolumbar spine) risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs was used for evaluation.

2.5. Ethical statement

As all analyses were conducted with data from previously published studies, ethical approval was not necessary.

3. Results

3.1. Search results

A total of 58 studies were identified as potential literature reports. By scanning headings and abstracts, 44 reports were excluded according to eligibility criteria. No additional studies were obtained after review of the references. Finally, 14 nonrandomized controlled trials met the requirements of data extraction and meta-analysis. Table 1 Shows the characteristics of the trials. The article selection chart is shown in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Cohort characteristics.

Studies Year Country Fractures Simple size Age Type Follow-up NOS
Lee WS 2006 Korea 38 244 Average 66.4 RCS >48 7
Li YA 2012 China 63 166 Average 73.4 RCS 12–60 6
Lin WC 2008 China 14 29 56–77 RCS — 8
Lo YP 2008 China 15 220 53–97 RCS 24–36 8
Lu K 2012 China 34 155 43–94 RCS >24 8
Martinez 2013 Spain 17 57 73.6 ± 9.3 RCS 6–39 7
Ren HL 2015 China 21 182 49–91 RCS 6–60 8
Rho YJ 2012 Korea 27 147 49–93 RCS 12–73 8
Sun G 2014 China 37 175 70.3 ± 8.2 RCS >12 8
Kang SK 2011 Korea 27 60 Average 70 RCS >12 7
Lin H 2008 China 14 29 Average 73.8 RCS 22.4 8
Voormolen 2006 Dutch 16 66 46–88 RCS >12 6
Ahn Y 2008 Korea 45 95 Average 69.3 RCS — 8
Yoo CM 2012 Korea 49 244 48-93 RCS 0.2–61.7 8
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of the study selection process.

3.2. Bone mineral density

We extracted the BMD value from 3 included articles. The results show that BMD is a risk factor for secondary fracture after PVP (heterogeneity P = .564, I2 = 0.0%, SMD = −0.407, 95% CI: −0.650 to −0.164, P = .001; Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the BMD.

3.3. Cement leakage

Six articles have been demonstrated the relationship between the cement leakage and secondary fractures rate. There is no significant heterogeneity in the statistical results of the pooled literature (I2 = 42.4%, P = .123). The result of the fixed effect model showed that the cement leakage could increase the incidence of new fractures (95% CI: 0.444–0. 798, RR = 0.596, P = .001; Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the cement leakage.

3.4. Kyphosis

Three publications focus on the effect of postoperative kyphosis after primary operation on secondary fractures. Similar to the results described above, postoperative kyphosis angle of vertebra is closely related to the secondary fractures (heterogeneity P = .0000, I2 = 0.0%, SMD = 0.741, 95% CI: 0.449–1. 032, P = .0000; Fig. 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the kyphosis.

3.5. Gender

In 5 publications, 93 female, and 248 males were included in our meta-analysis, respectively. There was no difference between the gender and the risk factor (heterogeneity P = .830, I2 = 0.0%, RR = 0.962, 95% CI: 0.768–1.204, P = .733; Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the gender.

3.6. Age

The meta-analysis result showed that age had no effect on postoperative new fractures of OVCF patients following PVP operation (heterogeneity P = .0000, I2 = 0.0%, SMD = 0.133, 95% CI: −0.006–0.271, P = .733; Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the age.

3.7. Cement volume

No significant differences were observed between the cement volume and new fractures rate of OVCF patients following PVP operation (SMD = −0.245, 95% CI: −0.608–0.119; P = .187, Fig. 7) with obvious heterogeneity (heterogeneity P = .012, I2 =78.9%).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the cement volume.

3.8. Body mass index

The BMI was reported in 8 inclusion studies. A random-effects model with obvious heterogeneity is established. (I2 = 74.4%, P = .1432). There was no significant statistical difference in BMI (SMD = −0.216, 95% CI: −0.526–0.094, P = .172; Fig. 8).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the BMI.

3.9. Thoracolumbar spine

Five studies concentrate on whether the primary fracture in thoracic lumbar segment effects on postoperative secondary fractures of PVP operation. There was no obvious heterogeneity (I2 = 48.3%, P = .101); therefore, a fixed-effects model was adopted. Pooling the results demonstrated that primary fracture in thoracic lumbar segment has no effect on secondary fractures after PVP (RR = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.496–1.159, P = .409; Fig. 9).

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the thoracolumbar spine.

3.10. Cement injection approach

Seven publications compare the secondary fracture rate of different cement injection approaches. The result show that different cement injection approaches are independent of secondary fractures (heterogeneity P = .000, I2 = 78.9%, RR = −0.245, 95% CI: −0.608–0.119, P = .0000; Fig. 10). All Meta-analysis results are illustrated in Table 2

Figure 10.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

Forest plot diagram showing the cement injection approach.

Table 2.

Meta-analysis results.

Overall effect Heterogeneity
Outcome Studies Groups (s/N) Effect estimate 95% CI P value I2 (%) P value
BMD 3 91/291 −0.407 −0.650, −0.164 .001 0.0% .564
Cement leakage 6 269/1070 0.596 0.444, 0. 798 .001 42.4% .123
Kyphosis 3 28/8 0.741 0.449, 1. 032 .0000 0.0% .0000
Gender 11 97/248 0.962 0.768,1.204 .733 0.0% .830
Age 10 269/1070 0.133 −0.006, 0.271 .060 0.0% .0000
Cement volume 7 181/919 −0.245 −0.608, 0.119 .187 78.9% .1856
BMI 8 245/737 −0.216 −0.526, 0.094 .172 74.4% .1432
Thoracolumbar spine 5 117/75 0.898 0.496,1.159 .409 48.3% .101
Cement injection approach 7 63/499 −0.245 −0.608,0.119 .187 78.9% .000
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

The aging process of the population has accelerated osteoporosis as one of the common diseases that endanger the health of the elderly, and OVCF are the main complications of osteoporosis.[5] According to the literature, OVCF accounts for about 45% of all osteoporotic fractures.[17] PVP could not only rapidly and effectively relieve pain, but also shorten the hospitalization days and improve the life quality of OVCF patients.[18] Though, PVP has been widely used in the treatment of OVCF, the problem of secondary fractures following PVP surgery is widely concerned. The incidence of new fractures following PVP reported in the study was 7.4% to 52%.[19,20] However, PVP-related risk factors of postoperative secondary fractures are not consistent in OVCF patients. The results of our meta-analysis show that the new fractures after PVP for OVCF patients was related to BMD, cement leakage and kyphosis after primary operation, but not to gender, age, BMI, cement volume, thoracolumbar spine. or cement injection approaches.

Mudano et al[21] believed that the risk of secondary fractures in patients after PVP is significantly higher than that of conservative treatment. By using spinal finite element model, other scholars[22] observed that the bone cement injection could reduce the physiological concave of vertebral endplate. This process not only increased the vertebral body pressure by 19%, but also reduced the flexibility of local spinal joints, and the load of adjacent segments could increase by 17%. Another explanation for the secondary fractures is that increased daily activity in postoperative patients aggrandize the stress of the vertebral body, resulting in higher risk of secondary fractures.[23]

BMD as an important symbol of bone mass, which could reflect the degree of osteoporosis. One study[23] showed that patients with lower BMD were more likely to have secondary fractures after PVP. One follow-up study of 104 cases of OVCF patients with PVP shows that there are 51.9% of patients of postoperative recurrence of adjacent vertebral fracture. The BMD of the fracture group was −3.52, the nonfracture group was −2.91. Logistic regression analysis showed that there was a negative correlation between BMD and the risk of fracture of adjacent vertebral bodies, suggesting that the lower BMD could cause higher risk of secondary fractures of the adjacent vertebral bodies.[24] The research of Lu in 155 patients with PVP showed that the probability of new osteoporotic fractures within 2 years after the operation was 27.7%.[25] Furthermore, BMD in the fracture group was significantly lower than that of no more fracture group (−3.07 vs −2.24, P<.05). The results of our meta-analysis confirmed that low BMD was a high risk factor for postoperative secondary fractures of OVCF patients. It also has a higher risk of secondary fractures even without PVP in OVCF patients. This risk may be the natural development of osteoporosis.

The association between the secondary fractures and the correction of vertebral kyphosis is uncertain. KANG et al[16] found that 20 out of 27 cases of secondary fractures were surgical vertebral body fractures. The larger angle of the kyphosis preoperatively is a risk factor for fracture. At the same time, the correction of postoperative kyphosis led to the imbalance of the stress of the vertebral body, which also increases the risk of vertebral fracture. Another study reported by Lin[14] considered that each degree rectification in the vertebral kyphosis could increase the risk of adjacent vertebral fractures by 9%. However, Lunt et al[26] reported that kyphosis corrections could reduce the incidence of adjacent fractures. In addition, Robert et al[27] believed that the severity of kyphosis was associated with a subsequent fracture of the adjacent vertebral body. The results of present meta-analysis shows that the incidence of secondary fractures in patients with larger postoperative vertebral kyphosis is higher. Under normal conditions, the compression load of the spine is perpendicular to the endplate of the vertebral body, and the progressive kyphosis will result in a change in the distribution of the spinal load, thus increasing the incidence of vertebral secondary fractures.[23] Therefore, we believe it is more favorable to correct kyphotic deformity without causing complications.

During the operation of PVP, bone cement could be overflowed through fractures fissure of vertebral body when it is injected into bone cement.[28,29] The study showed that the leakage of bone cement to the intervertebral space increased the risk of fracture of adjacent vertebral body.[23,30] The following mechanism of bone cement leakage may lead to a recurrent fracture of the adjacent vertebral body:

  • 1.

    when the bone cement leaks into the intervertebral space, the stress reduction of the injured vertebral disc leads to an increase in the stress of the adjacent vertebral body.

  • 2.

    The leakage of bone cement could mechanically stimulate the endplate plate of the adjacent vertebral body, accelerate the degeneration of the disc, and further increase the risk of fracture of adjacent vertebral body. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that bone cement leakage could increase the incidence of vertebral secondary fractures.

The choice of unilateral or bilateral puncture in PVP operation is still controversial. Steinmann J et al[31] hold the point that it has no statistically significant difference in the efficacy and mechanical analysis of PVP by unilateral or bilateral pedicle puncture. The study of VAN -MEIRHAEGHE[32] found that the strength and stiffness of injured vertebrae could be restored by unilateral injection or bilateral injection, which had no significant effect on the stress of nonoperative vertebral body. The present meta-analysis demonstrate that cement leakage is not a risk factors for the new fractures to PVP for OVCF patients.

Kim DJ et al[33] compared the different volume of bone cement injection in PVP operation showing that it has no correlation between the secondary fractures and volumes of bone cement injection. Our meta-analysis gets the same conclusion. In addition, some scholars believe that the vertebrae which close to the primary fracture site has higher risk, especially the vertebrae at the thoracolumbar junction.[34,35] However, the result of meta-analysis shows that whether the primary fracture is located in the thoracolumbar segment has no effect on the secondary fractures after the PVP. Ahn Y et al[36] found that low BMI is a risk factor for new hip and spinal fractures. Conversely, vertebral fractures are more likely to occur in overweight patients.[37] The present meta-analysis shows that BMI is not a relevant risk factor. Theoretically, the elderly women are more likely to develop osteoporosis, which could result in vertebral secondary fractures following PVP operation. However, from our meta-analysis, the age and gender are not an independent risk factor. It may be due to the relatively small sample size of the included literatures, the conclusion is still to be proved.

Our research has the following limitations:

  • 1.

    the included literatures were retrospectively studies.

  • 2.

    The follow-up time of each study was different and the data collection was incomplete.

  • 3.

    The quality of the collected documents is uneven.

5. Conclusion

Bone mineral density, cement leakage and kyphosis after primary operation are the risk factors closely correlative to the secondary fracture after PVP. There has not been enough evidence to support the associations between the secondary fracture and gender, age, body mass index, cement volume, thoracolumbar spine, and cement injection approaches.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Henan People's Hospital of Henan University for providing the database.

Author contributions

Data curation: GongWei Zhai.

Formal analysis: Ang Li, Binfeng Liu.

Funding acquisition: YanZheng Gao.

Investigation: Weichao Sheng.

Methodology: Guang Yang.

Software: Dongbo Lv, Jingyi Zhang.

Writing – original draft: GongWei Zhai.

Writing – review & editing: GongWei Zhai, YanZheng Gao.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence intervals, MD = mean difference, NOS =Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, OVCF = osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, PVP = percutaneous vertebroplasty, RCS = retrospective controlled study, RCT = randomized controlled trial, SD = standard deviation.

How to cite this article: Zhai G, Li A, Liu B, Lv D, Zhang J, Sheng W, Yang G, Gao Y. A meta-analysis of the secondary fractures for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Medicine. 2021;100:16(e25396).

This work was supported by The Thousand Talents Plan of Henan Province.

The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

S = secondary fractures group, N = no fractures group.

References

  • [1].Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, et al. Conservative management of patients with an osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a review of the literature. J BoneJoint Surg Br 2012;94:152–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Yang H, Pan J, Wang G. A review of osteoporotic vertebral fracture nonunion management. Spine 2014;39((26 Spec No.)):B4–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Buchbinder R, Golmohammadi K, Johnston RV, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;30:Cd006349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Knopp-Sihota JA, Newburn-Cook CV, Homik J, et al. Calcitonin for treating acute and chronic pain of recent and remote osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:17–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Shi GH, Cui LP, Wei XC, Orthopaedics DO. Progress on treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Zhongguo Gu Shang 2013;26:878–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Ishikawa Y, Miyakoshi N, Kasukawa Y, et al. Spinal curvature and postural balance in patients with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2009;20:2049–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Liu-Ambrose T, Eng JJ, Khan KM, et al. The influence of back pain on balance and functional mobility in 65- to 75-year-old women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:868–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Silverman SL. The clinical consequences of vertebral compression fracture. Bone 1992;13: Suppl 2: S27–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Kallmes DF, Jensen ME. Percutaneous vertebroplasty. Radiology 2003;229:27–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Baerlocher MO, Saad WE, Dariushnia S, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014;25:165–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Trout AT, Kallmes DF, Kaufmann TJ. New fractures after vertebroplasty: adjacent fractures occur significantly sooner. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:217–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Hiwatashi A, Westesson PL. Patients with osteoporosis on steroid medication tend to sustain subsequent fractures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1055–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Frankel BM, Monroe T, Wang C. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation: an elevation in adjacent-level fracture risk in kyphoplasty as compared with vertebroplasty. Spine J 2007;7:575–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Lin WC, Cheng TT, Lee YC, et al. New vertebral osteoporotic compression fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty: retrospective analysis of risk factors. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19(2 Pt 1):225–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Levy H, Seydafkan S, Rice JD, et al. Comparative efficacy of vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and medical therapy for vertebral fractures on survival and prevention of recurrent fractures. Endocr Pract 2012;18:499–507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Kang SK, Lee CW, Park NK, et al. Predictive risk factors for refracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Annals Rehabil Med 2011;35:844–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Heini PF, Walchli B, 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Grados F, Depriester C, Cayrolle G, et al. Long-term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Rheumatology 2000;39:1410–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Movrin I, Vengust R, Komadina R. Adjacent vertebral fractures after percutaneous vertebral augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a comparison of balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:1157–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Fribourg D, Tang C, Sra P, et al. Incidence of subsequent vertebral fracture after kyphoplasty. Spine 2004;29:2270–6. discussion 77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Mudano AS, Bian J, Cope JU, et al. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are associated with an increased risk of secondary vertebral compression fractures: a population-based cohort study. Osteoporos Int 2009;20:819–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Baroud G, Nemes J, Heini P, et al. Load shift of the intervertebral disc after a vertebroplasty: a finite-element study. Eur Spine J 2003;12:421–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Uppin AA, Hirsch JA, Centenera LV, et al. Occurrence of new vertebral body fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. Radiology 2003;226:119–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Kim MH, Lee AS, Min SH, et al. Risk factors of new compression fractures in adjacent vertebrae after percutaneous vertebroplasty. Asian Spine J 2011;5:180–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Lu K, Liang CL, Hsieh CH, et al. Risk factors of subsequent vertebral compression fractures after vertebroplasty. Pain Med 2012;13:376–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Lunt M, O’Neill TW, Felsenberg D, et al. Characteristics of a prevalent vertebral deformity predict subsequent vertebral fracture: results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study (EPOS). Bone 2003;33:505–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Tatsumi RL, Ching AC, Byrd GD, et al. Predictors and prevalence of patients undergoing additional kyphoplasty procedures after an initial kyphoplasty procedure. Spine J 2010;10:979–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Venmans A, Klazen CA, van Rooij WJ, et al. Postprocedural CT for perivertebral cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty is not necessary--results from VERTOS II. Neuroradiology 2011;53:19–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Kalteis T, Luring C, Gugler G, et al. Acute tissue toxicity of PMMA bone cements. Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und ihre Grenzgebiete 2004;142:666–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Bae JS, Park JH, Kim KJ, et al. Analysis of risk factors for secondary new vertebral compression fracture following percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. World Neurosurg 2017;99:387–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Steinmann J, Tingey CT, Cruz G, et al. Biomechanical comparison of unipedicular versus bipedicular kyphoplasty. Spine 2005;30:201–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, Boonen S, et al. A randomized trial of balloon kyphoplasty and nonsurgical management for treating acute vertebral compression fractures: vertebral body kyphosis correction and surgical parameters. Spine 2013;38:971–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Kim DJ, Kim TW, Park KH, et al. The proper volume and distribution of cement augmentation on percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010;48:125–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Tanigawa N, Komemushi A, Kariya S, et al. Radiological follow-up of new compression fractures following percutaneous vertebroplasty. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 2006;29:92–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Chang CY, Teng MM, Wei CJ, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for patients with osteoporosis: a one-year follow-up. Acta Radiologica 2006;47:568–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Thomas T, Barou O, Vico L, et al. Recurrence of vertebral fracture with cyclical etidronate therapy in osteoporosis: histomorphometry and X-Ray microanalysis evaluation. J Bone Miner Res 1999;14:198–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Tanaka S, Kuroda T, Saito M, et al. Overweight/obesity and underweight are both risk factors for osteoporotic fractures at different sites in Japanese postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:69–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES