STUDY DESIGN: Experimental biomechanics of multilevel segments with 0, 1, 2, and 3 vertebral levels of polymethylmethacrylate augmentation. OBJECTIVE: To compare multilevel spinal segments with different numbers (0, 1, 2, and 3) of vertebral levels augmented with polymethylmethacrylate. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The stiffness and strength of single-level polymethylmethacrylate augmentations in individual and multilevel vertebrae treated by kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty have been studied, but the biomechanics of multilevel segments with more than 1 vertebral level augmented with polymethylmethacrylate are lacking, yet this is clinically relevant in multilevel compression fracture treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 multilevel segments (T3-T5, T6-T8, T9-T11, T12-L2, and L3-L5) from 12 spines with known bone mineral density (BMD) were allocated into 6 groups based on the number of vertebral levels augmented: 0 levels (n = 13), control group; 1 level (n = 7), group 2; 2 levels, groups 3, 4, and 5 (n = 7 in each); and 3 levels (n = 7), group 6. They were compressed to failure, disarticulated into individual vertebrae, and retested. Stiffness and strength were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance comparing the main effects, using least significant difference comparisons with 0.05 probability level. RESULTS: Strength was dependent on BMD (P < 0.001 multilevel segments, P < 0.001 individual vertebrae), with no differences among the 6 different augmentation groups, and no significant differences between augmented and nonaugmented individual vertebrae. Stiffness was dependent on BMD (P = 0.009 multilevel segments, P < 0.004 individual vertebrae), with no significant differences among the 6 different augmentation groups, and no significant differences between augmented and nonaugmented individual vertebrae. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel segment biomechanics are dependent on BMD and not the pattern of augmentation, so the augmentation of fractured vertebrae can be extended to adjacent levels at risk for fracture to maintain stiffness and strength, thus preventing further fractures.
STUDY DESIGN: Experimental biomechanics of multilevel segments with 0, 1, 2, and 3 vertebral levels of polymethylmethacrylate augmentation. OBJECTIVE: To compare multilevel spinal segments with different numbers (0, 1, 2, and 3) of vertebral levels augmented with polymethylmethacrylate. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The stiffness and strength of single-level polymethylmethacrylate augmentations in individual and multilevel vertebrae treated by kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty have been studied, but the biomechanics of multilevel segments with more than 1 vertebral level augmented with polymethylmethacrylate are lacking, yet this is clinically relevant in multilevel compression fracture treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 multilevel segments (T3-T5, T6-T8, T9-T11, T12-L2, and L3-L5) from 12 spines with known bone mineral density (BMD) were allocated into 6 groups based on the number of vertebral levels augmented: 0 levels (n = 13), control group; 1 level (n = 7), group 2; 2 levels, groups 3, 4, and 5 (n = 7 in each); and 3 levels (n = 7), group 6. They were compressed to failure, disarticulated into individual vertebrae, and retested. Stiffness and strength were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance comparing the main effects, using least significant difference comparisons with 0.05 probability level. RESULTS: Strength was dependent on BMD (P < 0.001 multilevel segments, P < 0.001 individual vertebrae), with no differences among the 6 different augmentation groups, and no significant differences between augmented and nonaugmented individual vertebrae. Stiffness was dependent on BMD (P = 0.009 multilevel segments, P < 0.004 individual vertebrae), with no significant differences among the 6 different augmentation groups, and no significant differences between augmented and nonaugmented individual vertebrae. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel segment biomechanics are dependent on BMD and not the pattern of augmentation, so the augmentation of fractured vertebrae can be extended to adjacent levels at risk for fracture to maintain stiffness and strength, thus preventing further fractures.
Authors: Giovanni Andrea La Maida; Laura Serena Giarratana; Alberto Acerbi; Valentina Ferrari; Giuseppe Vincenzo Mineo; Bernardo Misaggi Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Michael M Safaee; Joseph A Osorio; Kushagra Verma; Shay Bess; Christopher I Shaffrey; Justin S Smith; Robert Hart; Vedat Deviren; Christopher P Ames Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Salvatore Masala; Roberta Mastrangeli; Maria Chiara Petrella; Francesco Massari; Antonio Ursone; Giovanni Simonetti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M B Pitton; S Herber; C Bletz; P Drees; N Morgen; U Koch; B Böhm; A Eckardt; C Düber Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 5.315