HOW DOES CEMENT VOLUME INFLUENCE THE MECHANICAL EFFECTS OF VERTEBROPLASTY?

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this cadaver study was to examine how cement volume used in vertebroplasty influences the restoration of normal load-sharing and stiffness to fractured vertebrae.

Methods: Nineteen thoracolumbar motion segments obtained from 13 spines (42–91 yrs) were compressed to failure in moderate flexion to induce vertebral fracture. Fractured vertebrae underwent two sequential vertebroplasty treatments (VP1 and VP2) each of which involved unipedicular injection of 3.5ml of polymethyl-methacrylate cement. During each injection, the volume of any cement leakage was recorded. At each stage of the experiment (pre-fracture, post-fracture, post-VP1 and post-VP2) measurements were made of motion segment stiffness, in bending and compression, and the distribution of compressive stress across the disc. The latter was measured in flexed and extended postures by pulling a pressure transducer through the mid-sagittal diameter of the disc whilst under 1.5kN load. Stress profiles indicated the intradiscal pressure (IDP), stress peaks in the posterior annulus (SPP), and neural arch compressive load-bearing (FN). Measurements obtained after VP1 and VP2 were compared with pre-fracture and post-fracture values using repeated measures ANOVA to examine the effect of cement volume (3.5 ml vs. 7 ml) on the restoration of mechanical function.

Results: Fracture reduced compressive and bending stiffness by 50% and 37% respectively (p< 0.001) and IDP by 59%–85%, depending on posture (p< 0.001). SPP increased from 0.53 to 2.46 MPa in flexion, and from 1.37 to 2.83 MPa in extension (p< 0.01). FN increased from 11% to 39% of the applied load in flexion, and from 33% to 59% in extension (p< 0.001). VP1 partially reversed the changes in IDP and SPP towards pre-fracture values but no further restoration of these parameters was found after VP2. Bending and compressive stiffness and FN showed no significant change after VP1, but were restored towards pre-fracture values by VP2. Cement leakage occurred in 3 specimens during VP1, and in 7 specimens during VP2. Leakage volumes ranged from 0.5–3.0 ml, and were larger during VP2 than VP1.

Conclusions: Unipedicular injection of 3.5 ml of cement reversed fractured induced changes in IDP and SPP, but did not affect stiffness and neural arch load-bearing. Larger injection volumes may provide some extra mechanical benefit in terms of restoring stiffness and reducing neural arch loading, but these extra mechanical benefits can be at the cost of increased risk of cement leakage.