A PRELIMINARY IN VITRO BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION OF PROPHYLACTIC CEMENT AUGMENTATION OF THE THORACOLUMBAR VERTEBRAE

In this paper, the biomechanical effectiveness of prophylactic augmentation in preventing fracture was investigated. In vitro biomechanical tests were performed to assess which factors make prophylactic augmentation effective/ineffective in reducing fracture risk. Nondestructive and destructive in vitro tests were performed on isolated osteoporotic vertebrae. Five sets of three-adjacent-vertebrae were tested. The central vertebra of each triplet was tested in the natural condition (control) non-destructively (axial-compression, torsion) and destructively (axial-compression). The two adjacent vertebrae were first tested nondestructively (axial-compression, torsion) pre-augmentation; prophylactic augmentation (uni- or bi-pedicular access) was then performed delivering 5.04mL to 8.44mL of acrylic cement by means of a customized device; quality of augmentation was CT-assessed; the augmented vertebrae were re-tested nondestructively (axial-compression, torsion), and eventually loaded to failure (axial-compression). Vertebral stiffness was correlated with the first-failure, but not with ultimate failure. The force and work to ultimate failure in prophylactic-augmented vertebrae was consistently larger than in the controls. However, in some cases the first-failure force and work in the augmented vertebrae were lower than for the controls. To investigate the reasons for such unpredictable results, the correlation with augmentation quality was analyzed. Some augmentation parameters seemed more correlated with mechanical outcome (statistically not-significant due to the limited sample size): uni-pedicular access resulted in a single cement mass, which tended to increase the force and work to first- and ultimate failure. The specimens with the highest strength and toughness also had: at least 25% cement filling, cement mass shifted anteriorly, and cement-endplate contact. These findings seem to confirm that prophylactic augmentation may aid reducing the risk of fracture. However, inadequate augmentation may have detrimental consequences. This study suggests that, to improve the strength of the augmented vertebrae, more attention should be dedicated to the quality of augmentation in terms of amount and position of the injected cement.

[1]  I. Lieberman,et al.  Biomechanical changes after the augmentation of experimental osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in the cadaveric thoracic spine. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[2]  K T Ison,et al.  The strengthening effect of percutaneous vertebroplasty. , 2000, Clinical radiology.

[3]  Cari M Whyne,et al.  Optimization of Tumor Volume Reduction and Cement Augmentation in Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for Prophylactic Treatment of Spinal Metastases , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[4]  Yan Chevalier,et al.  Cement Distribution, Volume, and Compliance in Vertebroplasty: Some Answers From an Anatomy-Based Nonlinear Finite Element Study , 2008, Spine.

[5]  M. Hongo,et al.  Surface strain distribution on thoracic and lumbar vertebrae under axial compression. The role in burst fractures. , 1999, Spine.

[6]  D. Kallmes,et al.  New fractures after vertebroplasty: adjacent fractures occur significantly sooner. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[7]  Luca Cristofolini,et al.  Numerical description and experimental validation of a rheology model for non-Newtonian fluid flow in cancellous bone. , 2013, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.

[8]  A. Levine,et al.  Biomechanical efficacy of unipedicular versus bipedicular vertebroplasty for the management of osteoporotic compression fractures. , 1999, Spine.

[9]  H Yamamoto,et al.  Mechanical augmentation of the vertebral body by calcium phosphate cement injection , 2001, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[10]  Lutz-Peter Nolte,et al.  Development of a Computer-Assisted High-Pressure Injection Device for Vertebroplasty , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  Chun-Kun Park,et al.  The prognostic factors influencing on the therapeutic effect of percutaneous vertebroplasty in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. , 2009, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[12]  A. Cotten,et al.  Long-term follow-up of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty , 2004, Clinical Rheumatology.

[13]  Joshua A Hirsch,et al.  Occurrence of new vertebral body fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporosis. , 2003, Radiology.

[14]  P. Pollintine,et al.  Can Vertebroplasty Restore Normal Load-Bearing to Fractured Vertebrae? , 2005, Spine.

[15]  M. Scorsetti,et al.  Percutaneous vertebral augmentation in metastatic disease: state of the art. , 2011, The journal of supportive oncology.

[16]  K. Sun,et al.  Biomechanics of Prophylactic Vertebral Reinforcement , 2004, Spine.

[17]  Nico Verdonschot,et al.  The Influence of Endplate-to-Endplate Cement Augmentation on Vertebral Strength and Stiffness in Vertebroplasty , 2007, Spine.

[18]  G. Baroud,et al.  Biomechanical impact of vertebroplasty. Postoperative biomechanics of vertebroplasty. , 2006, Joint, bone, spine : revue du rhumatisme.

[19]  Ruth K Wilcox,et al.  A Biomechanical Investigation of Vertebroplasty in Osteoporotic Compression Fractures and in Prophylactic Vertebral Reinforcement , 2007, Spine.

[20]  L. Nolte,et al.  Adjacent vertebral failure after vertebroplasty. A biomechanical investigation. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  Ruth K Wilcox,et al.  The biomechanical effectiveness of prophylactic vertebroplasty: a dynamic cadaveric study. , 2008, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[22]  S. Belkoff,et al.  An Ex Vivo Biomechanical Evaluation of an Inflatable Bone Tamp Used in the Treatment of Compression Fracture , 2001, Spine.

[23]  Been-Der Yang,et al.  Prophylactic Vertebroplasty May Reduce the Risk of Adjacent Intact Vertebra From Fatigue Injury: An Ex Vivo Biomechanical Study , 2009, Spine.

[24]  S. K. Boyd,et al.  Differences in endplate deformation of the adjacent and augmented vertebra following cement augmentation , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[25]  J. Lotz,et al.  The effect on anterior column loading due to different vertebral augmentation techniques. , 2005, Clinical biomechanics.

[26]  S J Ferguson,et al.  Regional variation in vertebral bone morphology and its contribution to vertebral fracture strength. , 2007, Bone.

[27]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  Structural behaviour and strain distribution of the long bones of the human lower limbs. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  T. Keaveny,et al.  Effects of Bone Cement Volume and Distribution on Vertebral Stiffness After Vertebroplasty , 2001, Spine.

[29]  Antonius Rohlmann,et al.  Loads on a Telemeterized Vertebral Body Replacement Measured in Two Patients , 2008, Spine.

[30]  M. Adams,et al.  Neural arch load-bearing in old and degenerated spines. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  F. Grados,et al.  Long‐term observations of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty , 2000 .

[32]  J. Laredo,et al.  Complications of percutaneous vertebroplasty and their prevention. , 2005, Skeletal radiology.

[33]  Christoph Fankhauser,et al.  Augmentation of mechanical properties in osteoporotic vertebral bones – a biomechanical investigation of vertebroplasty efficacy with different bone cements , 2001, European Spine Journal.

[34]  I. Lieberman,et al.  Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: filler materials. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[35]  G. Niebur,et al.  Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[36]  B. Bai,et al.  The use of an injectable, biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute for the prophylactic augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae and the management of vertebral compression fractures. , 1999, Spine.

[37]  S. Molloy,et al.  The management of spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma. , 2009, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[38]  Valentina Danesi,et al.  Reproducible reference frame for in vitro testing of the human vertebrae. , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[39]  Stephen J Ferguson,et al.  Vertebroplasty: Experimental Characterization of Polymethylmethacrylate Bone Cement Spreading as a Function of Viscosity, Bone Porosity, and Flow Rate , 2008, Spine.

[40]  I. Han,et al.  MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING FINDINGS OF SUBSEQUENT FRACTURES AFTER VERTEBROPLASTY , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[41]  M. Adams,et al.  Vertebroplasty: Only Small Cement Volumes Are Required to Normalize Stress Distributions on the Vertebral Bodies , 2009, Spine.

[42]  J. Ahn,et al.  Risk factors of new compression fractures in adjacent vertebrae after percutaneous vertebroplasty , 2004, Acta radiologica.

[43]  Gunnar B. J. Andersson,et al.  Biomechanical Evaluation of an Injectable Calcium Phosphate Cement for Vertebroplasty , 2002, Spine.

[44]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR THE BIOMECHANICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE HUMAN SPINE: A REVIEW , 2014 .

[45]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  Strain distribution in the lumbar vertebrae under different loading configurations. , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[46]  T M Keaveny,et al.  Biomechanical consequences of an isolated overload on the human vertebral body , 2000, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.