Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:392
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 89-93

High-viscosity bone cement for vertebral compression fractures: A prospective study on intravertebral diffusion of bone cement


1 Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong, Jinan; The Third Staff Hospital of Baogang Group, Baotou, China
2 Department of Orthopaedics, Affiliated Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China

Date of Submission27-Feb-2020
Date of Decision24-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance17-Apr-2020
Date of Web Publication06-Aug-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Meiyong Wang
The Third Staff Hospital of Baogang Group, Baotou
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_26_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective: Bone cement leakage causes severe complication following percutaneous vertebroplasty. This study probed the diffusion and leakage status of bone cement injected within diverged time duration, to find the optimal injection time for bone cement. Methods: A total of 70 patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures with a symptom of low back pain who underwent treatment at hospital were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into three groups: <180 s, 180–300, and >300 s of injection time duration from the beginning to the completion of the injection. The scenarios of vertebral bone cement leakage and diffusion were inspected using postoperative computed tomography. Results: The diffusion coefficient was higher in Group A than in Group B, whereas it was higher in Group B than in Group C, but without statistical significance among the three groups. The leakage rate was without statistical significance among the three groups. The injection time of bone cement was negatively correlated with the diffusion coefficient, at the correlation coefficient of −0.253. Conclusions: The diffusion coefficient of high-viscosity bone cement is likely negatively correlated with the injection time, and the leakage rate of high-viscosity bone cement probably does not reduce with the prolongation of injection time.

Keywords: Bone cement, computed tomography, diffusion, elderly, osteoporosis, pain, percutaneous vertebroplasty


How to cite this article:
Wang M, Jin Q. High-viscosity bone cement for vertebral compression fractures: A prospective study on intravertebral diffusion of bone cement. Indian J Pain 2020;34:89-93

How to cite this URL:
Wang M, Jin Q. High-viscosity bone cement for vertebral compression fractures: A prospective study on intravertebral diffusion of bone cement. Indian J Pain [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 24];34:89-93. Available from: http://www.indianjpain.org/text.asp?2020/34/2/89/291539




  Introduction Top


Osteoporosis is one of the most common diseases of the elderly, and it results in considerable pain and decreased the quality of life if not treated appropriately.[1] According to the International Osteoporosis Foundation, osteoporotic fractures probably occur in 30%–50% of people aged more than 50 years.[2] Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) refers to the injection of liquid polymethylmethacrylate into the collapsed vertebral body, stabilizing the vertebral body and relieving pain. The first case of PVP was reported in 1987 for the treatment of vertebral angioma,[3] followed by a gradual application for the relief of intractable pain caused by spine tumor or osteoporosis.[4],[5] At present, its efficacy for osteoporosis has been well appreciated,[6],[7] but with severe complications due to bone cement leakage.[8] Leakage of bone cement into the spinal canal or cardiovascular system could generate severe complications, such as nerve compression or embolism, and even cause death.[9],[10],[11]

High-viscosity bone cement was applied to reduce the leakage risk,[11],[12],[13],[14] with the advantage of optionally long injection time, allowing the surgeons to determine whether the injection would be continued before cement leakage takes place, thus prominently improving the operative safety.[15]

Injection timing of bone cement is the direct impact factor for leakage. Baroud et al.[11] proposed cement leakage ceased completely when cement was delivered after 10 min, with good viscosity, and not prone to leakage.[16] Surgeons prefer injecting cement earlier, which causes rapid diffusion and leakage, to avoid procedure failure; however, delayed injection could raise difficulty due to the setting of cement.[17] Therefore, a precise timing of bone cement injection is critical, which should avoid leakage while cement spread more uniformly. The cement fills more uniformly is an essential element in the reconstruction of stiffness and biomechanical balance of the fractured vertebral body.[18],[19]

At present, most studies of bone cement focus on the therapeutic effect while rarely on the injection time after starting the mixing or on diffusion within the vertebral body.

Objective

Bone cement leakage causes severe complication following PVP. This study probed the diffusion and leakage status of bone cement injected within diverged time duration, so as to find the optimal injection time of bone cement.


  Methods Top


Study design

This was a prospective case analysis.

Study time and institution

A total of 70 cases of thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures with a symptom of low back pain who underwent treatment between August 2014 and April 2016 at a hospital, were enrolled in this study [Table 1]. These patients underwent PVP, and the bone mineral density (BMD) was measured routinely before operation, in addition to X-ray imaging of the anteroposterior and lateral positions of the thoracolumbar spine and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients aged more than 60 years, with osteopenia displayed by BMD measurement; (2) patients with fresh fractures confirmed by MRI, which was shown by the X-ray examination as a single vertebral compression fracture, with the degree of vertebral compression no more than 75%; (3) patients whose fracture occurred spontaneously or was caused by minor trauma; (4) patients without any infection within the 15 cm range of the puncture position; (5) patients without cardiac pulmonary, hepatic, or renal failure; and (6) patients without coagulopathy or bleeding tendency. All patients were informed of the treatment modality after admission to hospital, and before surgery, they were informed that their follow-up information would be included in this study. Excluded cases comprised patients with concurrent spinal cord compression or nerve injury; or spinal stenosis exceeding 30%; or concomitant spinal tuberculosis, tumor, and rheumatoid arthritis.
Table 1: Surgical parameters of the three groups

Click here to view


Study groups

Seventy eligible patients, with totally diseased vertebral bodies, visiting the hospital during this period were randomly allocated into three groups by the computer software based on their hospitalization numbers: Group A (injection time duration <180 s); Group B (injection time duration at the range of 180–300 s); and Groups C (injection time duration >300 s). The specific baseline information for each group was as [Table 1].

Materials

Acrylic resin bone cement was purchased from TEKNIMED S.A., France (BP 60 65502 VIC EN BIGORRE Cedex); bone cement mixer and vertebroplasty instrument (expansion type) were purchased from ZhongShan ShiYiTang Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. (Specification and model: 15 mL, PKP-I; product standard number: YZB/Guangdong 0574–2010; product registration certificate number: Guangdong Food and Drug Administration [quasi] 2011 NO. 2100306 [more]); and computed tomography (CT) system was purchased from General Electric Company (Model: Lightspeed VCT).

Surgical technique

Vertebroplasty

The diseased vertebral body was located using C arm fluoroscopy, and the point and angle of needle insertion were determined at the lateral position. The needle was inserted from the lateral superior direction to the vertebral pedicle (the left side was at 10 o'clock direction to the vertebral pedicle, whereas the right side was at 2 o'clock direction). An incision was made through which the puncture needle was inserted, followed by the working cannula. High-viscosity bone cement was mixed and prepared by the surgical first assistant, whereas the second assistant started to count time and write records. The polymethyl methacrylate powder is put into a container. Liquid methyl methacrylate monomer was added to the powder and the mixture was mixed to a toothpaste-like consistency. The operations are carried out according to the instructions. After the cement was prepared, it was loaded into the rotary pressure pump, followed by slow injection into the vertebral body by the surgeon using C-arm fluoroscopy, a turn of the pump handle was applied approximately 0.3 cc. The injection was immediately stopped, and the time was counted when bone cement reached the posterior wall of the vertebral body displayed under fluoroscopy. The injection volume of bone cement was visible through the scale on the filling machine and recorded. After the complete setting of cement, the working cannula was removed, and the wound was pressed for hemostasis and bound up.

Main outcome measures

The patients' vital signs and complications of cement leakage were intensively monitored after the surgery. CT inspection was performed for all patients 3 days after surgery. Three-dimensional (3D) images of the vertebral body and bone cement were reconstructed on an image workstation by another group of medical staff through 3D imaging and volume rendering of CT data, and the measurement of bone cement and vertebral body was enabled through relevant functions of the workstation.

Measurement of the diffused cement volume within the vertebral body

The diffusion volume of bone cement is a 3D structure formed by wrapping bone trabeculae, and their gaps with bone cement after bone cement is injected into vertebral body. The diffusion capacity of bone cement injected into the vertebral body was reflected by diffusion coefficient: diffusion coefficient = diffusion volume/injection volume of cement. The postoperative image of the vertebral body was retrieved from the workstation. Subsequently, the boundary of cement diffusion was outlined, and other tissues were deleted except for bone cement, prior to the acquisition of the diffusion volume of bone cement after several fractionations.

Analysis of bone cement leakage

Postoperative 3D images of the vertebral body and bone cement rendered on the image workstation were checked to record and analyze the leakage situation of bone cement, including paravertebral, intraspinal, and intervertebral space leakages. Subsequently, the leakage rate of bone cement was calculated for each group.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Enumeration and measurement data were expressed, respectively, with frequency/percentage (n/%) and mean ± standard deviation (x ± s). Specific analysis included the following: (1) the mean and standard deviation of the injection and diffusion volumes were calculated for the three groups, followed by the normal distribution test; (2) the diffusion coefficient of bone cement among the three groups was compared by one-way analysis of variance; (3) the leakage rates among the three groups were compared using the Chi-square test; (4) Pearson correlation analysis was used to measure the correlation of bone cement injection time with diffusion coefficient for the three individual groups; and (5) the analysis power was preset (α = 0.05), and a P < 0.05 was designated as statistically significant.


  Results Top
[Table 2]
Table 2: Bone cement distribution in the three groups

Click here to view


Diffusion coefficient of bone cement in different time periods

Bone cement injection volume, diffusion volume, and diffusion coefficient of the three groups are listed in [Table 2]. The diffusion coefficient was higher in Group A than in Group B while higher in Group B than in Group C, but without statistical significance among the three groups (P = 0.113).

Leakage rate of bone cement at different time periods

The leakage rate of bone cement was 33.3% in Group A, 21.7% in Group B, and 17.4% in Group C, with no significant difference between Group A and Group C (P = 0.418).

Correlation of bone cement injection time with diffusion coefficient

Bone cement injection time was negatively correlated with diffusion coefficient within a certain time range, with the correlation coefficient of -0.253 (P < 0.05).


  Discussion Top


The present study demonstrated that the diffusion capability and leakage rate of high-viscosity bone cement did not decrease with the prolonged injection time, whereas the diffusion capability was negatively correlated with the injection time. The mean diffusion coefficient of bone cement was higher in Group A than in Groups B and C, but without statistical significance (P = 0.113), indicating that the diffusion capability of high-viscosity bone cement in the vertebral body does not alleviate with prolonged time within a given time range, which could be because of the sticky phase of bone cement and stable property at this range.

The diffusion coefficient of bone cement was negatively correlated with injection time within a certain time range. The diffusion ranges varied with different injection time durations. The viscosity of bone cement is presumed to elevate with time prolongation following preparation, and early injected cement, diffusing to a certain range, inhibits the diffusion of succeeding cement, giving rise to a reduced diffusion range.

In the present study, the leakage status of high-viscosity bone cement was compared among the three groups with different injection times, and the findings revealed that although prolonged injection could reduce leakage, the difference was not statistically significant. Therefore, it is irrational to purposely prolong bone cement injection to reduce the leakage rate of bone cement in the clinical practice. High-viscosity bone cement is injectable in 1–2 min after starting mixing, with short-waiting time and long operable time; therefore, the surgeon needs no estimation or prediction for injection time, greatly declining the leakage rate. However, prolonged work with bone cement offers enough time to a surgeon to decide how to inject bone cement into the vertebral body. Boger et al. claimed that the injection of bone cement should be delayed as much as possible to prevent leakage and overflow.[19] The incidence rate of bone cement leakage is generally 6%–15%, whereas Martin et al. reported it as high as 82%,[20] most of which was asymptomatic leakage and pulmonary cement embolism or spinal injury was rarely reported.[21],[22] Yeom et al. proposed CT imaging as the gold standard for diagnosing bone cement leakage, with a higher diagnostic value compared with X-ray imaging.[23] However, in the present study, CT inspection was adopted for diagnosing leakage, at the rate of 24.3% (17/70), which was higher than that reported in previous studies.

Patients with single thoracolumbar vertebral fracture having similar clinical characteristics were enrolled in this study to ensure homogeneity of baseline features across the groups. Controllable variables were unified. For example, the same operating system and the same batch of bone cement were applied throughout the study, and the surgery was performed by the same surgeon at the same room temperature, while bone cement was injected using a rotary pressure pump and mixed by the same surgical assistant, minimizing most interference factors.

This study has some limitations. The time range chosen for the study was limited, unable to cover the entire work time with the bone cement. Moreover, the symptomatic recovery of patients after surgery was not assessed, thus results from this study are not complete.


  Conclusions Top


In brief, the diffusion capability of high-viscosity bone cement is likely not reduced with the prolongation of injection time within a certain time range, showing the negative correlation, and the leakage rate of high-viscosity bone cement is likely not reduced with the prolongation of injection time.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflict of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Cummings SR, Melton LJ. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 2002;359:1761-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ballane G, Cauley JA, Luckey MM, El-Hajj Fuleihan G. Worldwide prevalence and incidence of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 2017;28:1531-42.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, Le Gars D. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 1987;33:166-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Anselmetti GC, Corrao G, Monica PD, Tartaglia V, Manca A, Eminefendic H, et al. Pain relief following percutaneous vertebroplasty: Results of a series of 283 consecutive patients treated in a single institution. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007;30:441-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Diamond TH, Bryant C, Browne L, Clark WA. Clinical outcomes after acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures: A 2-year non-randomised trial comparing percutaneous vertebroplasty with conservative therapy. Med J Australia 2006;184:113-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Han S, Wan S, Ning L, Tong Y, Zhang J, Fan S. Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: A meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Int Orthop 2011;35:1349-58.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Yan D, Duan L, Li J, Soo C, Zhu H, Zhang Z. Comparative study of percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011;131:645-50.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Klezl Z, Majeed H, Bommireddy R, John J. Early results after vertebral body stenting for fractures of the anterior column of the thoracolumbar spine. Injury 2011;42:1038-42.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Hiwatashi A, Ohgiya Y, Kakimoto N, Westesson PL. Cement leakage during vertebroplasty can be predicted on preoperative MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1089-93.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Koh YH, Han D, Cha JH, Seong CK, Kim J, Choi YH. Vertebroplasty: Magnetic resonance findings related to cement leakage risk. Acta Radiol 2007;48:315-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Baroud G, Crookshank M, Bohner M. High-viscosity cement significantly enhances uniformity of cement filling in vertebroplasty: An experimental model and study on cement leakage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:2562-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Muijs SP, van Erkel AR, Dijkstra SP. A clinical comparative study on low versus medium viscosity polymethylmetacrylate bone cement in percutaneous vertebroplasty: Viscosity associated with cement leakage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:E1037-44.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Zhang L, Wang J, Feng X, Tao Y, Yang J, Wang Y, et al. A comparison of high viscosity bone cement and low viscosity bone cement vertebroplasty for severe osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015;129:10-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Lador R, Liberman S, Ben-Galim P, Dreiangel N, Reitman CA, Hipp JA. A cadaver study to compare vertebral augmentation with a high-viscosity cement to augmentation with conventional lower-viscosity cement. J Spinal Disord Tech 2013;26:68-73.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Georgy BA. Clinical experience with high-viscosity cements for percutaneous vertebral body augmentation: Occurrence, degree, and location of cement leakage compared with kyphoplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:504-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Franc J, Lehmann P, Saliou G, Monet P, Kocheida EM, Daguet E, et al. Vertebroplasty 10 yeas clinical and radiological fallow-up. J Neuroradiol 2010;4:211-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Baroud G, Samara M, Steffen T. Influence of mixing method on the cement temperature-mixing time history and doughing time of three acrylic cements for vertebroplasty. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004;68:112-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Wi Nam HG, Jeong JH, Shin YI, Moon SM, Hwang HS. Clinical effects and radiological results of vertebroplasty: Over a 2-year follow-up period. Korean J Spine 2012;9:334-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Boger A, Wheeler KD, Schenk B, Heini PF. Clinical investigations of polymethylmethacrylate cement viscosity during vertebroplasty and relatedin vitro measurements. Eur Spine J 2009;18:1272-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Martin DJ, Rad AE, Kallmes DF. Prevalence of extravertebral cement leakage after vertebroplasty: Procedural documentation versus CT detection. Acta Radiol 2012;53:569-72.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Mpotsaris A, Abdolvahabi R, Hoffleith B, Nickel J, Harati A, Loehr C, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty in vertebral compression fractures of benign or malignant origin: A prospective study of 1188 patients with follow-up of 12 months. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011;108:331-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J, Jansen FH, Tielbeek AV, Blonk MC, et al. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): An open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2010;376:1085-92.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Yeom JS, Kim WJ, Choy WS, Lee CK, Chang BS, Kang JW. Leakage of cement in percutaneous transpedicular vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic compression fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:83-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Discussion
Conclusions
Results
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed224    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal