Vertebroplasty for osteoporotic crush fractures

46
Percutaneous vertebroplasty Dr David Lisle Brisbane Private Imaging Royal Brisbane Hospital University of Queensland

Transcript of Vertebroplasty for osteoporotic crush fractures

Percutaneous vertebroplasty

Dr David Lisle

Brisbane Private Imaging Royal Brisbane Hospital University of Queensland

•  85 year old female •  Severe acute mechanical back pain

– Pain not managed with high dose therapy – Can’t sleep – Limited walking to only a few steps

•  Spontaneous onset •  No known trauma •  No known malignancy

Vertebral compression fracture

•  Radiographic or symptomatic clinical event •  Radiographic: 26% women >50 years •  USA/year: 150,000 hospital admissions;

5,000,000 restricted days •  ↓ VC and FEV •  ↑ mortality

–  ≥ 1 # : 1.23 x age adjusted –  ≥ 5 # : >2 x age adjusted

Mathis AJNR 2001;22:373-381

Indications

•  Painful crush fracture – Osteoporosis – Acute: 4-6 weeks

•  Malignant crush fracture – +/- biopsy

•  Haemangioma – Galibert Neurochirurgie 1987;33:166-8

Patient selection = key to success

•  Back pain – Sudden onset – May radiate anteriorly – NOT sciatica – Mechanical – Restricted activity – Poor sleep

•  Local tenderness •  Imaging

Patient selection

•  Purposes of pre-procedure imaging: – Confirm presence of crush fracture – Confirm that crush fracture is acute – Diagnose other acute levels –  Integrity of spinal canal – Accurately localise level

Imaging techniques

•  Plain films: – Confirm presence of crush fracture – Confirm that crush fracture is acute – Diagnose other acute levels –  Integrity of spinal canal – Accurately localise level

24/3/2001

24/3/2001 16/12/2000

Imaging techniques

•  MRI: – Confirm presence of crush fracture – Confirm that crush fracture is acute – Diagnose other acute levels –  Integrity of spinal canal – Accurately localise level

MRI pre-vertebroplasty

•  Sagittal plane •  T1 for anatomy •  T2 fat saturation or

STIR – Marrow black – Oedema white

STIR

MRI

2

3

2

3

T1 STIR

Procedure

Patient preparation

•  Ensure MRI done and available •  (Coagulation profile) •  Pre-sedation fast •  Sedation and pain relief

–  iv cannula – Fentanyl + Midazolam

•  Sterile swab and drape

Needle placement: Thoracic

Needle placement: Lumbar

Cement preparation

Cement injection

Post procedure care

•  Lie prone for 20 minutes •  Bed rest for 2-3 hours •  CT to document cement placement •  Discharge if well

– Post-sedation instructions – Rest 24 hours – Mobilize according to pain

•  Advise re muscle pain •  Follow-up phone call(s)

Complications: rare

•  Mild fever; nausea for 24 hours •  Rib fracture •  Foraminal leak •  Spinal canal leak •  Venous emboli

Literature

•  Amar Neurosurg 2001;49:1105 –  97 pat., 258 levels –  ‘better life’ 74%

•  Narcotic/analgesic use •  Mobility •  Better sleep

•  Evans Radiology 2003;226:366 –  488 pat, 245 follow-up –  Pain scale 8.9 → 3.4 –  Impaired ambulation:

•  72% pre → 28% post

Literature

•  Diamond MJA 2006;184:113-117 – Conservative Rx vs PCV (non-randomised) – Acute pain 1-6 weeks, not relieved analgesics – MRI: acute fracture(s) – 3 factors: pain (VAS); physical function;

hospital days – 24 hours and 6 weeks: 60% ↓ pain scores;

29% ↑ physical function; 43% ↓ hospital days – Similar clinical outcomes at 6/12, 12/12, 24/12.

My results

•  Audit of first 250 patients, 2001 to 2006 •  Complete or near complete response

–  No or minimal pain –  Good return of activity level –  83.0 %

•  Moderate response –  Still suffer pain, though noticeably reduced –  Some return of activity, though still restricted –  12.0 %

•  No response –  5.0 %

Percutaneous vertebroplasty Keys to success

•  Patient selection – Early referral – MRI

•  High quality fluoroscopy – Accurate needle placement – Cement injection

•  Nursing care – Cement preparation – Patient care: pre and post

Percutaneous vertebroplasty

•  Indications •  Patient selection

– Clinical assessment –  Imaging

•  Technique – Needle placement – Post-procedure care

•  Results

MBS funding September 2005

So, what happened?

•  Buchbinder NEJM 2009;361:557-68 – Multicentre, randomized, double blind – Vertebroplasty vs placebo ‘sham’

procedure – N = 78: 38 vertebroplasty, 40 sham – No difference in pain scales or quality of

life •  MJA (Editorial) 2009;191:476-7

–  ‘Percutaneous vertebroplasty is not an effective treatment for acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures’

•  Patient selection –  Up to 12 months pain

•  Recruitment –  Majority of eligible

patients not recruited •  Technique

–  Up to 3ml cement –  Stopped injection if

leaking

MBS funding withdrawn 2011

Where are we now? •  Uncommon in most places •  Ongoing studies

– eg randomised trial in Sydney for acute fractures; recruitment very slow

•  Included in appropriateness guidelines in UK and USA –  http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/IPG12/chapter/1-

Guidance –  http://www.acr.org/

•  No Medicare rebate •  Our cost: 1400 + day bed about 700

Thank you