Safety and Effectiveness of Sacroplasty: A Large Single-Center Experience

The safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroplasty was assessed in 53 patients treated for cancer-related, osteoporotic insufficiency and traumatic fractures. The procedure was judged to be safe and resulted in significant short-term gains in pain relief, increased mobility, and decreased dependence on pain medication. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Sacral insufficiency fractures are a common cause of severe low back pain and immobilization in patients with osteoporosis or cancer. Current practice guideline recommendations range from analgesia and physical therapy to resection with surgical fixation. We sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of sacroplasty, an emerging minimally invasive treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of institutional databases for percutaneous sacroplasty performed between January 2004 and September 2013. Demographic and procedural data and pre- and posttreatment Visual Analog Scale, Functional Mobility Scale, and Analgesic Scale scores were reviewed. Overall response was rated by using a 4-point scale (1, complete resolution of pain; 2, improvement of pain; 3, no change; 4, worsened pain) assessed at short-term follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included; most (83%) were female. Fracture etiology was cancer-related (55%), osteoporotic insufficiency (30%), and minor trauma (15%). No major complication or procedure-related morbidity occurred. There were statistically significant decreases in the Visual Analog Scale (P < .001), Functional Mobility Scale (P < .001), and Analgesic Scale scores (P < .01) in 27 patients with recorded data: pretreatment Visual Analog Scale (median [interquartile range], 9.0 [8.0–10.0]); Functional Mobility Scale, 3.0 (2.0–3.0); and Analgesic Scale scores, 3.0 (3.0–4.0) were reduced to 3.0 (0.0–5.8), 1.0 (0.25–2.8), and 3.0 (2.0–3.8) posttreatment. When we used the overall 4-point score at a mean of 27 days, 93% (n = 45) reported complete resolution or improvement in overall pain. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center cohort, sacroplasty was a safe and effective procedure. There were significant short-term gains in pain relief, increased mobility, and decreased dependence on pain medication.

[1]  J. Chiras,et al.  Safety and effectiveness of percutaneous sacroplasty: a single-centre experience in 58 consecutive patients with tumours or osteoporotic insufficient fractures treated under fluoroscopic guidance , 2013, European Radiology.

[2]  D. Kallmes,et al.  Percutaneous sacroplasty using CT guidance for pain palliation in sacral insufficiency fractures , 2013, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[3]  C. Zarnitsky,et al.  Analgesic effect of sacroplasty in osteoporotic sacral fractures: a study of six cases. , 2012, Joint, bone, spine : revue du rhumatisme.

[4]  J. Hirsch,et al.  Sacroplasty: beyond the beginning , 2012, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[5]  B. Georgy,et al.  Multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of sacroplasty in patients with osteoporotic sacral insufficiency fractures or pathologic sacral lesions , 2012, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[6]  Z. Chaudhry,et al.  Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous acetabuloplasty , 2011, Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

[7]  Charles H. Cho,et al.  Sacral fractures and sacroplasty. , 2010, Neuroimaging clinics of North America.

[8]  P. Schnyder,et al.  Outcome of long-axis percutaneous sacroplasty for the treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures , 2009, European Radiology.

[9]  R. Jha,et al.  Predictors of successful palliation of compression fractures with vertebral augmentation: single-center experience of 525 cases. , 2009, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[10]  S. Belkoff,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Sacroplasty: Does Volume or Location of Cement Matter? , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[11]  D. Cifu,et al.  Percutaneous sacroplasty for osteoporotic sacral insufficiency fractures: a prospective, multicenter, observational pilot study. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[12]  C. Whitlow,et al.  Sacroplasty versus Vertebroplasty: Comparable Clinical Outcomes for the Treatment of Fracture-Related Pain , 2007, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[13]  S. Yazdani,et al.  Investigating Sacroplasty: Technical Considerations and Finite Element Analysis of Polymethylmethacrylate Infusion into Cadaveric Sacrum , 2007, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[14]  R. Coleman Clinical Features of Metastatic Bone Disease and Risk of Skeletal Morbidity , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  P. Schnyder,et al.  [Percutaneous sacroplasty]. , 2006, Revue medicale suisse.

[16]  S. Eustace,et al.  Percutaneous cementoplasty of acetabular bony metastasis. , 2003, The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland.

[17]  W. Nagler,et al.  The controversy surrounding sacral insufficiency fractures: to ambulate or not to ambulate? , 2000, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[18]  Lauren J. DeLoach,et al.  The Visual Analog Scale in the Immediate Postoperative Period: Intrasubject Variability and Correlation with a Numeric Scale , 1998, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[19]  I. Portek,et al.  Sacral insufficiency fractures in the elderly. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.