Evidence Hub

Therapeutic efficacy of Transpedicular Intracorporeal cement augmentation with short segmental posterior instrumentation in treating osteonecrosis of the vertebral body: a retrospective case series with a minimum 5-year follow-up

Hongli Deng, Yibing Li, Jin-Song Zhou, Xiao-Dong Wang, Jin-Peng Du, Wen-Jie Gao, Ding-Jun Hao

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2019

36 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

BackgroundTranspedicular intracorporeal cement augmentation (TCA) with short segmental posterior instrumentation (SSPI), which provides an ideal immediate analgesic effect and long-term reconstructive stability, is thought to be a sensible advancement to the operative strategy in treating osteonecrosis of the vertebral body (ONV). However, long-term follow-up studies about the treatment are scarce.MethodsForty-six ONV patients (22 males and 24 females, mean age of 62.8 ± 7.11 years) underwent TCA with SSPI were retrospectively analyzed. During follow-up, clinical outcomes, such as the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, were evaluated, as well as radiologic outcomes, such as the average vertebral height and kyphotic angle.ResultsA total of 36 patients completed a follow-up period of at least 5 years (mean follow-up period of 67 ± 4.2 months). Among them, seven patients experienced complications, i.e., pneumonia (2/36, 5.56%), screw loosening (2/36, 5.56%), moderate hematoma in the subcutaneous tissue (1/36, 2.78%), and cement leakage (2/36, 5.56%). Compared to the preoperative score, the mean VAS score was significantly reduced 6 months postoperatively (P 0.05). The mean ODI score exhibited a comparable trend. Regarding the radiologic evaluation, the mean kyphotic angle and average vertebral body height were significantly corrected postoperatively (both P < 0.05). However, these radiological parameters were maximally ameliorated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 36 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free