Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Vesselplasty vs. Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for the Treatment of Neurologically Intact Osteoporotic Kümmell’s Disease: A Retrospective Study

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Calcified Tissue International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kummell’s disease (KD) is a rare clinical complication of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). Minimally invasive surgery is an important way to treat KD. In this paper, we used Percutaneous Vertebroplasty (PVP) and Vesselplasty (VP) to treat KD. 125 patients with KD were admitted to our hospital. Among them, 89 patients received PVP and 36 received VP. All patients underwent operations successfully. VAS scores and ODI of both groups at each postoperative time point were lower than preoperatively. Postoperative Cobb angle of both groups postoperatively was lower than preoperatively (p < 0.05). The anterior height and ratio of vertebra compression of both groups postoperatively was lower than preoperatively (p < 0.05). Cement leakage occurred in 16 vertebrae (16/89) in PVP group and one (1/36) in VP group. Two patients suffered from transient paraplegia in PVP group immediately after operation. Adjacent vertebral fractures occurred in one patient in PVP group and one in VP group. Re-fracture of affected vertebra occurred in one patient in PVP group. Besides, four patients suffered from bone cement loosening in PVP group while one in VP group. Both PVP and VP play an important effect in pain relief and functional recovery for the treatment of KD. And VP is more effective than PVP in preventing cement leakage.

Summary

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty (PVP) and Vesselplasty (VP) were important procedures in treating Kümmell’s Disease (KD). As they have achieved good results in pain relief and functional recovery. Besides, they could reconstruct vertebral strength and prevent the aggravation of kyphosis in a long time. More importantly, VP is more effective than PVP in preventing cement leakage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lim J, Choi SW, Youm JY, Kwon HJ, Kim SH, Koh HS (2018) Posttraumatic delayed vertebral collapse: Kummell’s Disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 61(1):1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matzaroglou C, Georgiou CS, Assimakopoulos K, Giannakenas C, Karageorgos A, Saridis A, Kafchitsas K, Wilke HJ (2011) Kummell’s disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment and the role of nuclear medicine. Rationale according to our experience. Hell J Nucl Med 14(3):291–299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. He D, Yu W, Chen Z, Li L, Zhu K, Fan S (2016) Pathogenesis of the intravertebral vacuum of Kummell’s disease. Exp Ther Med 12(2):879–882

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Adamska O, Modzelewski K, Stolarczyk A, Kseniuk J (2021) Is Kummell’s Disease a Misdiagnosed and/or an Underreported Complication of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures? A Pattern of the Condition and Available Treatment Modalities. J Clin Med 10(12)

  5. Li Y, Qian Y, Shen G, Tang C, Zhong X, He S (2023) Percutaneous mesh-container-plasty versus percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of Kummell’s disease: a retrospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res 18(1):260

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dai SQ, Qin RQ, Shi X, Yang HL (2021) Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty for the treatment of neurologically intact osteoporotic Kummell’s disease. BMC Surg 21(1):65

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gao X, Du J, Zhang Y, Gong Y, Zhang B, Qu Z, Hao D, He B, Yan L (2022) Predictive Factors for Bone Cement Displacement following Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation in Kummell’s Disease. J Clin Med 11(24)

  8. He CJ, Liu GD (2018) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of bone-filling Mesh Container and simple percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty in the treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression fractures. Pain Physician 21(3):259–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Khan M, Kushchayev SV (2019) Percutaneous vertebral body augmentations: the state of art. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 29(4):495–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang Y, Shi L, Tang P, Zhang L (2017) Comparison of the Efficacy between two micro-operative therapies of old patients with osteoporotic vertebral Compression fracture: a Network Meta-Analysis. J Cell Biochem 118(10):3205–3212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen C, Fan P, Xie X, Wang Y (2020) Risk factors for cement leakage and adjacent vertebral fractures in Kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Clin Spine Surg 33(6):E251–E255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matzaroglou C, Georgiou CS, Panagopoulos A, Assimakopoulos K, Wilke HJ, Habermann B, Panos G, Kafchitsas K (2014) Kummell’s Disease: clarifying the mechanisms and patients’ inclusion Criteria. Open Orthop J 8:288–297

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wood KB, Li W, Lebl DR, Ploumis A (2014) Management of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine J 14(1):145–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim YC, Kim YH, Ha KY (2014) Pathomechanism of intravertebral clefts in osteoporotic compression fractures of the spine. Spine J 14(4):659–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maldague BE, Noel HM, Malghem JJ (1978) The intravertebral vacuum cleft: a sign of ischemic vertebral collapse. Radiology 129(1):23–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ishiyama M, Numaguchi Y, Makidono A, Kobayashi N, Fuwa S, Ohde S, Saida Y (2013) Contrast-enhanced MRI for detecting intravertebral cleft formation: relation to the time since onset of vertebral fracture. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(1):W117–W123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Libicher M, Appelt A, Berger I, Baier M, Meeder PJ, Grafe I, Dafonseca K, Noldge G, Kasperk C (2007) The intravertebral vacuum phenomen as specific sign of osteonecrosis in vertebral compression fractures: results from a radiological and histological study. Eur Radiol 17(9):2248–2252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Theodorou DJ (2001) The intravertebral vacuum cleft sign. Radiology 221(3):787–788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang B, Chen G, Yang X, Fan T, Chen Z (2022) Percutaneous Kyphoplasty Versus Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for Neurologically Intact Osteoporotic Kummell’s Disease: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Global Spine J 12(2):308–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huang X, Chang H, Xu H, Chen X, Wang H, Song Y (2022) Comparison of outcomes between Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Percutaneous Kyphoplasty for the Treatment of Kummell’s Disease: a Meta-analysis. Clin Spine Surg 35(6):276–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Flors L, Lonjedo E, Leiva-Salinas C, Marti-Bonmati L, Martinez-Rodrigo JJ, Lopez-Perez E, Figueres G, Raoli I (2009) Vesselplasty: a new technical approach to treat symptomatic vertebral compression fractures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(1):218–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Krauss M, Hirschfelder H, Tomandl B, Lichti G, Bar I (2006) Kyphosis reduction and the rate of cement leaks after vertebroplasty of intravertebral clefts. Eur Radiol 16(5):1015–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang Y, Peng M, He S, Tang X, Dai M, Tang C (2016) Clinical efficacy of Percutaneous Kyphoplasty at the hyperextension position for the treatment of osteoporotic Kummell Disease. Clin Spine Surg 29(4):161–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Fang Zhou and Pu Jia designed the experiment protocol; Ruideng Wang and Youliang Hao collected and processed the data; Ruideng Wang analyzed the data and drafted this manuscript; Fang Zhou and Pu Jia reviewed the manuscript and provided important comments and revision. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (81971160).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ruideng Wang and Youliang Hao contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, People’s Republic of China

    Ruideng Wang, Youliang Hao & Fang Zhou

  2. Engineering Research Center of Bone and Joint Precision Medicine, Beijing, China

    Ruideng Wang & Youliang Hao

  3. Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Mengmeng Chen & Pu Jia

Authors
  1. Ruideng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youliang Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mengmeng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pu Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fang Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Fang Zhou and Pu Jia designed the experiment protocol; Ruideng Wang and Mengmeng Chen collected and processed the data; Ruideng Wang analyzed the data and drafted this manuscript; Fang Zhou and Pu Jia reviewed the manuscript and provided important comments and revision. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Pu Jia or Fang Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Ruideng Wang, Youliang Hao, Pu Jia and Fang Zhou declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, R., Hao, Y., Chen, M. et al. Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Vesselplasty vs. Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for the Treatment of Neurologically Intact Osteoporotic Kümmell’s Disease: A Retrospective Study. Calcif Tissue Int 114, 360–367 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-024-01186-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-024-01186-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation