DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Magnetic Resonance Enhancement Pattern as a Predictor of Cement Volume in Vertebroplasty Procedures for Osteoporotic Fractures

  • Lee, Kye Ho (Department of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital) ;
  • Yoo, Dong Soo (Department of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Yoon Ha (Department of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.04.27
  • Accepted : 2017.07.28
  • Published : 2017.09.30

Abstract

Purpose: To identify the differences between injected cement volumes during vertebroplasty procedures according to the enhancement pattern of pre-procedure magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients who underwent 52 vertebroplasty procedures as well as pre-procedure contrast-enhanced spine MRI in the authors' institution were reviewed retrospectively. The 52 procedures were divided into two groups according to different enhancement patterns shown by pre-procedure MR imaging [E(+) and E(-)]. The volumes of the enhancing/non-enhancing portions of the fractured vertebral body shown by pre-procedural MR imaging were calculated and compared to the volumes of the injected cement during the vertebroplasty procedures. Results: The 52 injections included 28 (56%) in Group E(+) and 24 (44%) in Group E(-). The actual volume ratio of the injected cement to the volume of the non-enhanced or enhanced region calculated based on the contrast-enhanced MRI was $0.22{\pm}0.11(cc/cm^3)$ in the E(+) group and $0.93{\pm}0.62(cc/cm^3)$ in the E(-) group. The average amount of injected cement was significantly different between Group E(+) and Group E(-) (P < 0.001). In addition, the ratio of the injected cement amount to the volume of the enhanced or non-enhanced portion based on the contrast-enhanced MRI in Group E(-) was significantly higher than that of Group E(+) (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Different enhancement patterns shown by pre-procedure MRI can predictors of the injected cement volume during vertebroplasty procedures for osteoporotic fractures.

Keywords

References

  1. Mehbod A, Aunoble S, Le Huec JC. Vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spine fracture: prevention and treatment. Eur Spine J 2003;12 Suppl 2:S155-162 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0607-y
  2. Blasco J, Martinez-Ferrer A, Macho J, et al. Effect of vertebroplasty on pain relief, quality of life, and the incidence of new vertebral fractures: a 12-month randomized follow-up, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res 2012;27:1159-1166 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.1564
  3. Provenzano MJ, Murphy KP, Riley LH 3rd. Bone cements: review of their physiochemical and biochemical properties in percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:1286-1290
  4. Mathis JM. Percutaneous vertebroplasty: complication avoidance and technique optimization. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1697-1706
  5. Kaufmann TJ, Trout AT, Kallmes DF. The effects of cement volume on clinical outcomes of percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1933-1937
  6. Molloy S, Riley LH 3rd, Belkoff SM. Effect of cement volume and placement on mechanical-property restoration resulting from vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:401-404
  7. Ryu KS, Park CK, Kim MC, Kang JK. Dose-dependent epidural leakage of polymethylmethacrylate after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. J Neurosurg 2002;96:56-61
  8. Tanigawa N, Komemushi A, Kariya S, et al. Relationship between cement distribution pattern and new compression fracture after percutaneous vertebroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:W348-352 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2186
  9. Oka M, Matsusako M, Kobayashi N, Uemura A, Numaguchi Y. Intravertebral cleft sign on fat-suppressed contrastenhanced MR: correlation with cement distribution pattern on percutaneous vertebroplasty. Acad Radiol 2005;12:992-999 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2005.05.003