Terrence C H Hui1, Gideon Z L Tan2, Alvin K W Tan2, Uei Pua1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. 2. 2 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of cone beam CT (CBCT) in achieving unipedicular access during spinal cement augmentation. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent CBCT-guided unipedicular spinal augmentation procedures between 1 January 2012 and 15 June 2015 was performed. 59 patients (43 females 16 males; mean-age, 74.0 years; range, 52-90 years) underwent unipedicular spinal augmentation in 78 vertebral levels (T5-T9, n = 14; T10-L2, n = 42; L3-L5, n = 22). Degree of cross-over in contralateral hemivertebral body, complications and 30-day mortality were recorded. RESULTS: 97% (76/78) of procedures were technically successful. Two procedures failed owing to vertebral sclerosis. For vertebroplasty, all cases (6/6) demonstrated cross-over filling of cement and 50% (3/6) showed cement cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. For kyphoplasty, 13 out of 15 procedures demonstrated balloon and cement cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. Two kyphoplasty procedures required the second pedicle after midline cross-over of cement failed. Of the kyphoplasty procedures that were successfully performed with the unipedicular approach, 76.9% (10/13) showed cement cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. For stentoplasty, all cases (55/55) showed midline stent-cement complex cross-over and 78.2% (43/55) exhibited stent-cement complex cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. There was no major complication or mortality. Minor complications included asymptomatic cement extravasation (6.4%, n = 5) and self-limiting haematoma (1.3%, n = 1). CONCLUSION: Unipedicular access for spinal augmentation procedures is achieved at a high success rate with the use of CBCT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article describes the novel use of CBCT to achieve unipedicular spinal augmentation. Unipedicular spinal augmentation has the potential to reduce risk, duration, radiation and cost while achieving similar results.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of cone beam CT (CBCT) in achieving unipedicular access during spinal cement augmentation. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent CBCT-guided unipedicular spinal augmentation procedures between 1 January 2012 and 15 June 2015 was performed. 59 patients (43 females 16 males; mean-age, 74.0 years; range, 52-90 years) underwent unipedicular spinal augmentation in 78 vertebral levels (T5-T9, n = 14; T10-L2, n = 42; L3-L5, n = 22). Degree of cross-over in contralateral hemivertebral body, complications and 30-day mortality were recorded. RESULTS: 97% (76/78) of procedures were technically successful. Two procedures failed owing to vertebral sclerosis. For vertebroplasty, all cases (6/6) demonstrated cross-over filling of cement and 50% (3/6) showed cement cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. For kyphoplasty, 13 out of 15 procedures demonstrated balloon and cement cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. Two kyphoplasty procedures required the second pedicle after midline cross-over of cement failed. Of the kyphoplasty procedures that were successfully performed with the unipedicular approach, 76.9% (10/13) showed cement cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. For stentoplasty, all cases (55/55) showed midline stent-cement complex cross-over and 78.2% (43/55) exhibited stent-cement complex cross-over >50% of contralateral half of the vertebral body. There was no major complication or mortality. Minor complications included asymptomatic cement extravasation (6.4%, n = 5) and self-limiting haematoma (1.3%, n = 1). CONCLUSION: Unipedicular access for spinal augmentation procedures is achieved at a high success rate with the use of CBCT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article describes the novel use of CBCT to achieve unipedicular spinal augmentation. Unipedicular spinal augmentation has the potential to reduce risk, duration, radiation and cost while achieving similar results.
Authors: Ann K Kim; Mary E Jensen; Jacques E Dion; Patricia A Schweickert; Timothy J Kaufmann; David F Kallmes Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Roman Hodek-Wuerz; Jean-Baptiste Martin; Kai Wilhelm; Karl O Lovblad; Drazenko Babic; Daniel A Rufenacht; Stefan G Wetzel Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Sicco J Braak; Kirsten Zuurmond; Hans C J Aerts; Marc van Leersum; Timotheus T Th Overtoom; Johannes P M van Heesewijk; Marco J L van Strijen Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 2.740
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: David F Kallmes; Bryan A Comstock; Patrick J Heagerty; Judith A Turner; David J Wilson; Terry H Diamond; Richard Edwards; Leigh A Gray; Lydia Stout; Sara Owen; William Hollingworth; Basavaraj Ghdoke; Deborah J Annesley-Williams; Stuart H Ralston; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jan Van Meirhaeghe; Leonard Bastian; Steven Boonen; Jonas Ranstam; John B Tillman; Douglas Wardlaw Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 3.468