Safety and efficacy of percutaneous Vesselplasty (Vessel-X) in the treatment of symptomatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures

AIM To assess radiological and clinical outcomes, in terms of safety and efficacy, of symptomatic vertebral fractures (VFs) with and without posterior wall and\or both endplates involvement, treated with vesselplasty technique (Vessel-X, Dragon Crown Medical Co., Ltd Shandong, China). METHODS We retrospectively evaluated 66 Patients who underwent 92 vesselplasty procedures, performed for the treatment of symptomatic vertebral body fractures from March 19 to September 2020. We divided the fractures in two subgroups: 36 VFs with posterior wall and/or both endplates involvement, which we defined complex, while all the others were defined simple. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) values has been registered 1 day before the procedure and at 1, 6 and 12 months follow-up. We also evaluated vertebral height restoration (VHR) by comparing pre-interventional with post-interventional imaging. RESULTS 92 vertebrae were treated (58 lumbar, 34 dorsal), with 24 multilevel procedures. We observed a technical success rate of 100%, without major complications; a single case of asymptomatic paravertebral cement leak was reported. Both simple and complex subgroups registered a significative statistical difference in NRS and ODI between preoperative and at 1, 6 and 12 months (p0.05). A significant statistical difference was demonstrated in vertebral height comparing pre-operative and post-operative data (p0,05). No significant difference in VHR was observed between simple and complex VFs groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vesselplasty represents a safe and effective technique for the treatment of both simple and complex painful VFs, granting a significant reduction of symptoms, excellent cement leakage control and proper VHR.

[1]  M. Preul,et al.  Percutaneous Vertebroplasty: A History of Procedure, Technology, Culture, Specialty, and Economics. , 2019, Neuroimaging clinics of North America.

[2]  D. Filippiadis,et al.  Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty: Current Status, New Developments and Old Controversies , 2017, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[3]  Jian-zhong Jiang,et al.  Risk Factors for Cement Leakage After Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Published Evidence. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[4]  A. Gangi,et al.  CIRSE Guidelines on Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation , 2017, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[5]  G. Grillea,et al.  Third-generation percutaneous vertebral augmentation systems. , 2016, Journal of spine surgery.

[6]  M. Muto,et al.  Update of vertebral cementoplasty in porotic patients , 2015, Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences.

[7]  A. Abela,et al.  Comparative review of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. , 2014 .

[8]  R. Pflugmacher,et al.  Treatment options for vertebral fractures an overview of different philosophies and techniques for vertebral augmentation , 2014, European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.

[9]  G. Baroud,et al.  Vertebral Augmentation with Nitinol Endoprosthesis: Clinical Experience in 40 Patients with 1-Year Follow-up , 2014, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[10]  C. Röder,et al.  Radiographic and safety details of vertebral body stenting: results from a multicenter chart review , 2013, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[11]  Y. Shomura,et al.  Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for Osteoporotic Compression Fracture: Multivariate Study of Predictors of New Vertebral Body Fracture , 2006, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[12]  A. Feydy,et al.  Osteoporotic vertebral collapse: percutaneous vertebroplasty and local kyphosis correction. , 2004, Radiology.