STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To analyze differences in between the unipedicular vs. bipedicular balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of multiple myeloma lesions. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are reported to be effective for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma patients. Kyphoplasty is often performed with a bipedicular approach while vertebroplasty with a monopedicular approach. Monopedicular kyphoplasty is investigated as a viable surgical technique alternatively in comparison with the bipedicular method. METHODS: We performed 37 vertebral body augmentation procedures, 18 vertebroplasty (group A) and 19 kyphoplasty, 9 unipedicular approaches (group B1) and 10 bipedicular approaches (group B2), on 14 patients affected by multiple myeloma with a mean clinical and radiographic follow up of more than 12 months. RESULTS: Both kyphoplasty techniques lead to a better postoperative improvement of the vertebral height and kyphotic deformity if compared with the vertebroplasty, with a statistical significance for the body height restoration only (p = 0.0066). The unipedicular and the bipedicular kyphoplasty have similar results in term of kyphotic deformity correction and height restoration. The 85.7% (12/14) of the patients had an immediate improvement of the pain and no difference between the vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty groups were observed regarding the pain. We observed a 24.3% of cement leakage in all groups with no clinical symptoms and noticed that the risk of extravasations was higher in multilevel treatment, in bipedicular kyphoplasty procedures and in patients not treated previously with a bone marrow transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are effective in treating vertebral compression fracture due to multiple myeloma. Unipedicular kyphoplasty could give equivalent results as with bipedicular kyphoplasty in multilevel disease, aiming only to restore the sagittal alignment of the spine and the height of the vertebral body especially at the thoracolumbar spinal segment.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To analyze differences in between the unipedicular vs. bipedicular balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of multiple myeloma lesions. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are reported to be effective for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myelomapatients. Kyphoplasty is often performed with a bipedicular approach while vertebroplasty with a monopedicular approach. Monopedicular kyphoplasty is investigated as a viable surgical technique alternatively in comparison with the bipedicular method. METHODS: We performed 37 vertebral body augmentation procedures, 18 vertebroplasty (group A) and 19 kyphoplasty, 9 unipedicular approaches (group B1) and 10 bipedicular approaches (group B2), on 14 patients affected by multiple myeloma with a mean clinical and radiographic follow up of more than 12 months. RESULTS: Both kyphoplasty techniques lead to a better postoperative improvement of the vertebral height and kyphotic deformity if compared with the vertebroplasty, with a statistical significance for the body height restoration only (p = 0.0066). The unipedicular and the bipedicular kyphoplasty have similar results in term of kyphotic deformity correction and height restoration. The 85.7% (12/14) of the patients had an immediate improvement of the pain and no difference between the vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty groups were observed regarding the pain. We observed a 24.3% of cement leakage in all groups with no clinical symptoms and noticed that the risk of extravasations was higher in multilevel treatment, in bipedicular kyphoplasty procedures and in patients not treated previously with a bone marrow transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty are effective in treating vertebral compression fracture due to multiple myeloma. Unipedicular kyphoplasty could give equivalent results as with bipedicular kyphoplasty in multilevel disease, aiming only to restore the sagittal alignment of the spine and the height of the vertebral body especially at the thoracolumbar spinal segment.
Authors: Elias C Papadopoulos; Folorunsho Edobor-Osula; Michael J Gardner; Michael K Shindle; Joseph M Lane Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2008-12
Authors: Salvatore Masala; Giovanni Carlo Anselmetti; Stefano Marcia; Francesco Massari; Antonio Manca; Giovanni Simonetti Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2008-07
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: Ziad A Audat; Mahmoud H Hajyousef; Mohammad D Fawareh; Khaldoon M Alawneh; Mohannad A Odat; Mohammad M Barbarawi; Ali A Alomari; Rami A Jahmani; Mohammad A Khatatbeh; Mohammed A Assmairan Journal: Scoliosis Spinal Disord Date: 2016-12-29
Authors: Ioannis D Papanastassiou; Mohamed Eleraky; Ryan Murtagh; Zinon T Kokkalis; Maria Gerochristou; Frank D Vrionis Journal: Asian Spine J Date: 2014-06-09