| Literature DB >> 35568857 |
FuCheng Bian1,2, GuangYu Bian3, Shuo Huang4, Li Zhao5, JinHui Fang6, YongSheng An7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study was to investigate the risk factors for recollapse of new vertebral compression fractures (NVCFs) after percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) treatment for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF) and to construct a new nomogram model.Entities:
Keywords: Nomogram; Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture; Percutaneous kyphoplasty; Risk factor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35568857 PMCID: PMC9107663 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05409-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Fig. 1CT values were measured by PACS. A is a sagittal image of the lumbar spine with three tangents made on the measured vertebrae, corresponding to the three levels of (B), (C) and (D) in the axial position. The largest elliptical region of interest (ROI) containing only bone trabeculae was drawn in the axial position to obtain the average Hu value
Demographic characteristics of training set and testing set
| Characteristics | Training set(263) | Testing set(108) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.06 | ||
| Male | 68 | 18 | |
| Female | 195 | 90 | |
| Age(year) | 72.48 ± 7.29 | 72.10 ± 7.54 | 0.65 |
| BMI(Kg/m2) | 23.16 ± 3.32 | 22.73 ± 3.08 | 0.25 |
| HU value | 81.13 ± 24.51 | 79.76 ± 27.05 | 0.63 |
| Cement volume | 4.74 ± 0.79 | 4.73 ± 0.83 | 0.87 |
| Cement leakage | 0.25 | ||
| No | 184 | 82 | |
| Yes | 79 | 26 | |
| TL junction | 0.38 | ||
| No | 99 | 46 | |
| Yes | 164 | 62 | |
| Preoperative angle | 18.52 ± 5.77 | 18.91 ± 6.65 | 0.64 |
| Postoperative angle | 12.35 ± 4.65 | 12.67 ± 4.89 | 0.55 |
| Change angle | 6.25 ± 4.03 | 6.25 ± 4.51 | 0.99 |
| Bisphosphonates | 0.24 | ||
| No | 83 | 41 | |
| Yes | 180 | 67 |
BMI body mass index, HU Hounsfield unit, TL thoracolumbar
Preoperative demographic characteristics in training set
| Characteristics | NVCF(57) | N-NVCF(206) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.35 | ||
| Male | 12 | 56 | |
| Female | 45 | 150 | |
| Age(year) | 71.30 ± 7.58 | 72.81 ± 7.20 | 0.17 |
| BMI(Kg/m2) | 22.79 ± 3.51 | 23.26 ± 3.26 | 0.34 |
| HU value | 63.52 ± 24.20 | 86.01 ± 22.30 | < 0.01 |
| Cement volume | 4.84 ± 0.83 | 4.71 ± 0.78 | 0.28 |
| Cement leakage | < 0.01 | ||
| No | 27 | 157 | |
| Yes | 30 | 49 | |
| TL junction | < 0.01 | ||
| No | 10 | 89 | |
| Yes | 47 | 117 | |
| Preoperative angle | 19.05 ± 6.26 | 18.47 ± 5.64 | 0.50 |
| Postoperative angle | 12.87 ± 5.06 | 12.20 ± 4.53 | 0.34 |
| Change angle | 6.19 ± 3.19 | 6.24 ± 4.25 | 0.88 |
| Bisphosphonates | 1.00 | ||
| No | 18 | 65 | |
| Yes | 39 | 141 |
BMI body mass index, HU Hounsfield unit, TL thoracolumbar
Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis of risk factors of NVCFs after OVCF
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender(female) | 1.40(0.69–2.84) | 0.35 | ||
| Age(year) | 0.97(0.93–1.01) | 0.17 | ||
| BMI(Kg/m2) | 0.96(0.88–1.05) | 0.34 | ||
| HU value | 0.97(0.94–0.71) | < 0.01 | 0.96(0.94–0.97) | < 0.01 |
| Cement volume | 1.24(0.84–1.82) | 0.28 | ||
| Cement leakage(yes) | 3.56(1.93–6.56) | < 0.01 | 2.96(1.49–5.88) | < 0.01 |
| TL junction(yes) | 3.58(1.71–7.46) | < 0.01 | 3.11(1.41–6.89) | 0.01 |
| Preoperative angle | 1.02(0.97–1.07) | 0.49 | ||
| Postoperative angle | 1.03(0.97–1.10) | 0.34 | ||
| Change angle | 1.00(0.92–1.07) | 0.90 | ||
| Bisphosphonates(yes) | 1.00(0.53–1.88) | 1.00 | ||
NVCF new vertebral compression fracture, OVCF osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, BMI body mass index, HU Hounsfield unit, TL thoracolumbar
Fig. 2Nomogram for predicting NVCFs in patients with OVCFs after PKP operation. Each risk factor was assigned one point, which was summed to give a total number of points that corresponded to the probability of the hazard on the bottom row of the figure according to the total points
Fig. 3Comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between nomogram-independent predictors in the training set (A) and the testing set (B)
Fig. 4Comparison of calibration curves between the training set (A) and the testing set (B)
Fig. 5Comparison of decision curve analyses between the training set (A) and the testing set (B)
Fig. 6A and (B) are the lateral and anteroposterior X-rays after the first fracture operation; (C) and (D) are the lateral and positive X-rays after the second fracture