Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume 20, Issue 6 , Pages 760-768, June 2009

Predictors of Successful Palliation of Compression Fractures with Vertebral Augmentation: Single-center Experience of 525 Cases

  • Ruchira M. Jha, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to R.M.J., 9 Hawthorne Pl., Unit 6F, Boston, MA 02114
  • ,
  • Albert J. Yoo, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology/Division of Neurointerventional Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Ariel E. Hirsch, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Marion Growney, MSN, ACNP

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology/Division of Neurointerventional Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Joshua A. Hirsch, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology/Division of Neurointerventional Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Received 16 September 2008; received in revised form 21 January 2009; accepted 26 January 2009.

Purpose

To determine the effectiveness of vertebral augmentation in relieving pain, differences in pain relief outcomes based on procedure type were investigated. Variables that potentially influence outcomes were identified.

Materials and Methods

A database of 525 cases (740 levels) treated for compression fractures with vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, or S1-level sacroplasty was compiled. Average age was 75 years ± 12, and 72.4% of patients were female. Variables evaluated included age, sex, fracture etiology, procedure type, vertebral level treated, number of levels treated per procedure, and technical approach. Outcomes were assessed by a binary system of “responders” (ie, patients with improvement/resolution of pain) versus “non-responders” (ie, those with no change/worsening of pain) and with a four-level pain scale (1, pain resolution; 2, pain improvement; 3, no change; 4, worse pain) retrospectively applied from medical records. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined outcomes.

Results

Four-hundred and sixty-seven patients (89%) showed a response to treatment: 40% had pain resolution and 49% had pain improvement. Multivariate analysis showed that women and older patients had greater odds of being responders (odds ratios [ORs], 0.56 and 0.98, respectively; P = .016 and P = .048, respectively). Patients without cancer (OR, 1.60; P = .012) and women (OR, 2.05; P = .0002) were more likely to experience pain resolution. Increasing numbers of levels treated per case were associated with decreased odds of pain resolution (OR, 0.69; P = .0081). Sex and number of levels treated were independently predictive of pain scale outcomes (ORs, 2.0 and 0.71, respectively; P = .0003 and P = .015).

Conclusions

Vertebral augmentation procedures provide pain relief for a majority of patients regardless of underlying fracture etiology. There was no difference in pain outcomes among procedure types. Age and sex may be predictive of pain outcomes.

Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 J.A.H. is a consultant for and minor shareholder in Cardinal Health (Dublin, Ohio) and Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota). None of the other authors have identified a conflict of interest.

PII: S1051-0443(09)00347-9

doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.01.037

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume 20, Issue 6 , Pages 760-768, June 2009